The Flat Earth/Globe Earth Discussion Thread

[alexa]

41 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Well well well, very interesting; quick question is there anyone who believes in the heliocentric model that disputes refraction?

 

https://britastro.org/2019/atmospheric-refraction

 

I don't dispute refraction as it does actually happen.

[peter]

2 hours ago, Diesel said:

Well well well, very interesting; quick question is there anyone who believes in the heliocentric model that disputes refraction?

 

https://britastro.org/2019/atmospheric-refraction

So what's your point

[webtrekker]

16 hours ago, alexa said:

 

 

 

That video, and any conclusions based upon it, is pure bunkum.

 

Take the popular, free, astronomy software Stellarium. This software is based upon a Globe Earth and the positions of the stars are exactly where they are in reality. Now, this software can be used to accurately determine the view from anywhere on Earth (from anywhere in the known Universe, actually) and the view is always the exact view seen by simultaneous observers at the same time no matter where they are in the world.

 

So, how is this possible if the Flat Earth model is true?

 

Where is there an equivalent Stellarium-type software for the FE model. (Clue: no such software exists, because FE doesn't exist!).

 

Unless these questions can be satisfactorally answered then any claims of a Flat Earth are just plainly ludicrous.

 

 

 

 

[Diesel]

Interestingly, Flat Earthers place the sun at 3218km away. Suddenly that looks quite plausible.

 

This argument is about perspective over distance, the closer Polaris is to earth the more the argument falls apart. I calculate the distance to Polaris as 730,846km

 

FACTS

Polaris is located almost precisely 90° above the North Pole

Polaris is located at 0° at the equator. I have taken the reference point to be Quito, Ecuador which is fractionally south of the equator because I can provide photographic evidence and eyewitnesses that confirm that Polaris is viewable along the Horizon.

The radius of the Earth at the equator is 6378km

Refraction at the horizon is 0.5°.

So the angle to Polaris is 0.5°

 

 

 

 

Knowing all these facts, we can accurately calculate the distance to Polaris by creating a right-sided triangle.  https://www.calculator.net/triangle-calculator.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

[peter]

25 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Interestingly, Flat Earthers place the sun at 3218km away. Suddenly that looks quite plausible.

Brilliant so what you've done is one sided ,you have made you calculations,using the FE distance to the sun,so what happens when you use the globe earth figures but your not interested in that

 

29 minutes ago, Diesel said:

730,846km

anyway your distance falls well outside the confines of the so called firmament and given space doesn't exist and there is only water up there on the outside, I can't see how your assumption is correct with regards to the FE, let alone anything else ,still waiting for the FE hypothesis by the way,something a little more substantial than "well,well,well,that's interesting" would be good because all you did there was describe three holes in the ground

[alexa]

4 hours ago, webtrekker said:

Where is there an equivalent Stellarium-type software for the FE model. (Clue: no such software exists, because FE doesn't exist!).

 

Unless these questions can be satisfactorally answered then any claims of a Flat Earth are just plainly ludicrous.

 

I'm sorry but they (the lying elite) do not cater for us level headers, this is why Gods word is good enough for me.

You must see the bigger picture here, surely ?

It is your spinning globe model which is ludicrous, it is so illogical that even a blind man could see that we don't live on a spinning ball.

[Diesel]

1 minute ago, alexa said:

 

I'm sorry but they (the lying elite) do not cater for us level headers, this is why Gods word is good enough for me.

You must see the bigger picture here, surely ?

It is your spinning globe model which is ludicrous, it is so illogical that even a blind man could see that we don't live on a spinning ball.

So they want pictures from Stellarium

 

No problem here's one showing Polaris at 0°. Of course, there are photos and eyewitnesses as well.

 

 

 

 

[alexa]

47 minutes ago, Diesel said:

This argument is about perspective over distance, the closer Polaris is to earth the more the argument falls apart. I calculate the distance to Polaris as 730,846km

 

Thanks Diesel, I'd say your calculations are about right as no way is Polaris 323 light years away, how ridiculous is this ?

[Diesel]

11 minutes ago, peter said:

Brilliant so what you've done is one sided ,you have made you calculations,using the FE distance to the sun,so what happens when you use the globe earth figures but your not interested in that

 

No not at all, show me where I use the sun in calculations. Do the maths yourself its all there

[peter]

No, your right I was wrong sorry

 

[Diesel]

Beautiful time-lapped image of The North and South Poles from Ecuador and witness statement to viewing them both.

http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/SGU-From-pole-to-pole-1200x800-cp8.jpg

http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html

[webtrekker]

2 hours ago, Diesel said:

So they want pictures from Stellarium

 

No problem here's one showing Polaris at 0°. Of course, there are photos and eyewitnesses as well.

 

 

 

 

 

You know fine well that does not answer my post.

 

Show me a FE version of Stellarium that I can download and use to predict the positions of the stars on any specific time, date and location.

 

While you're at it, maybe you could also be so kind as to provide me with a link to a FE Nautical Almanac for the purposes of Stellar Navigation.

 

If you can't do any of those things then you should at least be able to provide me with navigational formulae that doesn't use Spherical Trigonometry, seeing as you profess to being so good at calculating.

 

These are simple requests that you, being a confessed Flat Earther, should be able to supply in an instant.

 

I await your detailed reply.

 

If no accurate reply comes then I'm sure everyone will realise your FE theory is thoroughly debunked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 17 by webtrekker

[Diesel]

3 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

You know fine well that does not answer my post.

 

Show me a FE version of Stellarium that I can download and use to predict the positions of the stars on any specific time, date and location.

 

While you're at it, maybe you could also be so kind as to provide me with a link to a FE Nautical Almanac for the purposes of Stellar Navigation.

 

If you can't do any of those things then you should at least be able to provide me with navigational formulae that doesn't use Spherical Trigonometry, seeing as you profess to be so good at calculating.

 

I await your detailed reply.

Patience, at the moment I am concentrating on the discussion on Polaris.  In the meantime,

 

 

 

[peter]

3 hours ago, Diesel said:

Beautiful time-lapped image of The North and South Poles from Ecuador and witness statement to viewing them both.

http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/SGU-From-pole-to-pole-1200x800-cp8.jpg

http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html

What is your point,I notice it says in the description  that these are caused by the earth's rotation

[peter]

5 hours ago, Diesel said:

Interestingly, Flat Earthers place the sun at 3218km away. Suddenly that looks quite plausible.

 

This argument is about perspective over distance, the closer Polaris is to earth the more the argument falls apart. I calculate the distance to Polaris as 730,846km

 

FACTS

Polaris is located almost precisely 90° above the North Pole

Polaris is located at 0° at the equator. I have taken the reference point to be Quito, Ecuador which is fractionally south of the equator because I can provide photographic evidence and eyewitnesses that confirm that Polaris is viewable along the Horizon.

The radius of the Earth at the equator is 6378km

Refraction at the horizon is 0.5°.

So the angle to Polaris is 0.5°

 

 

 

 

Knowing all these facts, we can accurately calculate the distance to Polaris by creating a right-sided triangle.  https://www.calculator.net/triangle-calculator.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

A “quick and dirty” formula assuming ‘standard’ temperatures and pressures is:

 

R = 57 / tan (a)

 

Where:  R = the amount of refraction in arc seconds.
               a = the true altitude of the object.

 

(This is fine as long as temperature and pressure do not stray too far from the standard values but even so it fails completely at an altitude of less than about 20 degrees.)

 

 

above is where you got the formula from,notice the line above then notice the line you wrote below

 

 

(Polaris is located at 0° at the equator. I have taken the reference point to be Quito, Ecuador which is fractionally south of the equator because I can provide)

 

 

 

Notice the description of the formula used (A “quick and dirty” formula assuming ‘standard’ temperatures and pressures is:)

 

There are many things that cause refraction, atmospheric pressure, ambient temperature, the distance the light has to travel through the atmosphere, temperature inversion, dust particles, moisture content ,upper level ice crystals, wind direction and speed at different altitudes, particulate size, etc I hope you took all these into account as well when you did your dirty equation and the fact that you took your base point from south of the equator I find interesting, if the witnesses can be believed and see Polaris as you say, it's obvious your trying to work out the value of the refraction angle with light that is already been refracted, if it wasn't Polaris would not be visible

So your quick and dirty equation is getting dirtier by the second 

Edited January 17 by peter

[Diesel]

5 hours ago, peter said:

A “quick and dirty” formula assuming ‘standard’ temperatures and pressures is:

 

R = 57 / tan (a)

 

Where:  R = the amount of refraction in arc seconds.
               a = the true altitude of the object.

 

(This is fine as long as temperature and pressure do not stray too far from the standard values but even so it fails completely at an altitude of less than about 20 degrees.)

 

 

above is where you got the formula from,notice the line above then notice the line you wrote below

 

 

(Polaris is located at 0° at the equator. I have taken the reference point to be Quito, Ecuador which is fractionally south of the equator because I can provide)

 

 

 

Notice the description of the formula used (A “quick and dirty” formula assuming ‘standard’ temperatures and pressures is:)

 

There are many things that cause refraction, atmospheric pressure, ambient temperature, the distance the light has to travel through the atmosphere, temperature inversion, dust particles, moisture content ,upper level ice crystals, wind direction and speed at different altitudes, particulate size, etc I hope you took all these into account as well when you did your dirty equation and the fact that you took your base point from south of the equator I find interesting, if the witnesses can be believed and see Polaris as you say, it's obvious your trying to work out the value of the refraction angle with light that is already been refracted, if it wasn't Polaris would not be visible

So your quick and dirty equation is getting dirtier by the second 

 

I used a 0.5 degree level of refraction at the Horizon level. This was a conservative calculation.

 

You can check here

 

http://wise-obs.tau.ac.il/~eran/Wise/Util/Refraction.html

[alexa]

They say that the moons gravitational pull  causes the World Tides, sorry but IMO all this is a load of hog wash.

 

The Tidal Respiration of the World’s Oceans

It should be noted that all of the earliest descriptions of the Far North speak of a whirlpool or whirlpools that control the world’s tides:

 

• Paul the Deacon (710-790)
• Adam of Bremen (1050-1083), “in which it is said that all the back currents of the sea, which seem to abate, are sucked up and vomited forth again, which latter are usually called the flood tide.”
• Norse legends include the world’s well, “Hvergelmer,” which causes the tides by pushing and pulling water through its subterranean channels.
• Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636)
• The Topographia hibernica of Giraldus Cambrensis (1146-1220; his description of the northern whirlpool is cited by Mercator).
• The Historia norvegiae (c.1180).
• The Speculum regale (c. 1250) of Einer Gunnarson.
• The Langobard author Paulus Warnefridi (c. 720-790), also called Diaconus wrote: 'And not far from the shore which we before spoke of, on the west, where the ocean extends without bounds, is that very deep abyss of waters which we commonly call the ocean’s navel. It is said twice a day to suck the waves into itself, and to spew them out again; as is proved to happen along all these coasts, where the waves rush in and go back again with fearful rapidity.... By the whirlpool of which we have spoken it is asserted that ships are often drawn in with such rapidity that they seem to resemble the flight of arrows through the air; and sometimes they are lost in the gulf with a very frightful destruction. Often just as they are about to go under, they are brought back again by a sudden shock of the waves, and they are sent out again thence with the same rapidity with which they were drawn in.
• Mercator's letter to John Dee (1577)

 

Apparently this giant whirlpool operates taking in and then spewing out once every six hours.

 

[Bombadil]

40 minutes ago, alexa said:

They say that the moons gravitational pull  causes the World Tides, sorry but IMO all this is a load of hog wash.

 

The Tidal Respiration of the World’s Oceans

It should be noted that all of the earliest descriptions of the Far North speak of a whirlpool or whirlpools that control the world’s tides:

 

• Paul the Deacon (710-790)
• Adam of Bremen (1050-1083), “in which it is said that all the back currents of the sea, which seem to abate, are sucked up and vomited forth again, which latter are usually called the flood tide.”
• Norse legends include the world’s well, “Hvergelmer,” which causes the tides by pushing and pulling water through its subterranean channels.
• Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636)
• The Topographia hibernica of Giraldus Cambrensis (1146-1220; his description of the northern whirlpool is cited by Mercator).
• The Historia norvegiae (c.1180).
• The Speculum regale (c. 1250) of Einer Gunnarson.
• The Langobard author Paulus Warnefridi (c. 720-790), also called Diaconus wrote: 'And not far from the shore which we before spoke of, on the west, where the ocean extends without bounds, is that very deep abyss of waters which we commonly call the ocean’s navel. It is said twice a day to suck the waves into itself, and to spew them out again; as is proved to happen along all these coasts, where the waves rush in and go back again with fearful rapidity.... By the whirlpool of which we have spoken it is asserted that ships are often drawn in with such rapidity that they seem to resemble the flight of arrows through the air; and sometimes they are lost in the gulf with a very frightful destruction. Often just as they are about to go under, they are brought back again by a sudden shock of the waves, and they are sent out again thence with the same rapidity with which they were drawn in.
• Mercator's letter to John Dee (1577)

 

Apparently this giant whirlpool operates taking in and then spewing out once every six hours.

 

Noticed all these dates are before it was mapped out properly. Most of these were guessing as they had never been there.

[webtrekker]

3 hours ago, alexa said:

They say that the moons gravitational pull  causes the World Tides, sorry but IMO all this is a load of hog wash.

 

The Tidal Respiration of the World’s Oceans

It should be noted that all of the earliest descriptions of the Far North speak of a whirlpool or whirlpools that control the world’s tides:

 

• Paul the Deacon (710-790)
• Adam of Bremen (1050-1083), “in which it is said that all the back currents of the sea, which seem to abate, are sucked up and vomited forth again, which latter are usually called the flood tide.”
• Norse legends include the world’s well, “Hvergelmer,” which causes the tides by pushing and pulling water through its subterranean channels.
• Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636)
• The Topographia hibernica of Giraldus Cambrensis (1146-1220; his description of the northern whirlpool is cited by Mercator).
• The Historia norvegiae (c.1180).
• The Speculum regale (c. 1250) of Einer Gunnarson.
• The Langobard author Paulus Warnefridi (c. 720-790), also called Diaconus wrote: 'And not far from the shore which we before spoke of, on the west, where the ocean extends without bounds, is that very deep abyss of waters which we commonly call the ocean’s navel. It is said twice a day to suck the waves into itself, and to spew them out again; as is proved to happen along all these coasts, where the waves rush in and go back again with fearful rapidity.... By the whirlpool of which we have spoken it is asserted that ships are often drawn in with such rapidity that they seem to resemble the flight of arrows through the air; and sometimes they are lost in the gulf with a very frightful destruction. Often just as they are about to go under, they are brought back again by a sudden shock of the waves, and they are sent out again thence with the same rapidity with which they were drawn in.
• Mercator's letter to John Dee (1577)

 

Apparently this giant whirlpool operates taking in and then spewing out once every six hours.

 

 

I remember asking my granddaughters what made the tide come in and out as we drove by the beach when they were 6 and 7 years old.

 

The answer was that it was pulled in and out with a rope!

 

You know what, Alexa? Their answer was every bit as good as yours! 

 

 

 

Edited January 17 by webtrekker

[peter]

1 hour ago, webtrekker said:

also called Diaconus wrote: 'And not far from the shore which we before spoke of, on the west, where the ocean extends without bounds, is that very deep abyss of waters which we commonly call the ocean’s navel. It is said twice a day to suck the waves into itself, and to spew them out again; as is proved to happen along all these coasts, where the waves rush in and go back again with fearful rapidity.... By the whirlpool of which we have spoken it is asserted that ships are often drawn in with such rapidity that they seem to resemble the flight of arrows through the air; and sometimes they are lost in the gulf with a very frightful destruction. Often just as they are about to go under, they are brought back again by a sudden shock of the waves, and they are sent out again thence with the same rapidity with which they were drawn in.

What causes the whirlpool to change direction then, and how come no big ships are thrown though the air today,if it is happening on a regular basis ( like every second time the tide changes) surely some bastard would have got a video,as a matter of fact I could just imagine half a dozen cruse ships all lined up at a distance,just waiting to capture the next big ship that comes hurtling out of the water from the depths.

I'm not sure why but I keep getting these mental flashes of the Amazon the letter A and the word idiot in quick succession, maybe it's a sign from god

[peter]

8 hours ago, Diesel said:

 

I used a 0.5 degree level of refraction at the Horizon level. This was a conservative calculation.

 

You can check here

 

http://wise-obs.tau.ac.il/~eran/Wise/Util/Refraction.html

can you please tell me what a conservative calculation is  I thought  math is either correct or incorrect with regards to geometery

I think that the old saying about computers could easily be applied here

[Diesel]

22 minutes ago, peter said:

can you please tell me what a conservative calculation is  I thought  math is either correct or incorrect with regards to geometery

I think that the old saying about computers could easily be applied here

0.5 degrees is slightly less than the calculator but is a generally used amount.

 

33.20833333333333 arcmin

divide by 60

 = 0.55 degrees

[alexa]

7 hours ago, Bombadil said:

Noticed all these dates are before it was mapped out properly. Most of these were guessing as they had never been there.

 

A letter to John Dee from Gerard Mercator in 1577 explaining some of his knowledge and insight into the Great Mystery of what lies at the North Pole.. and beyond.. the greatest question of our modern generation that remains to be answered and proven with actual footage and modern adventurers... but the militarys of the world forbid us from KNOWING... this must change.. This is the first part of a perpetual investigation into what lies in the forbidden zones of eARTh... if you have any insight.. definitely share it in the comments or email me at [email protected] The Letter can be found on Archive.org Below... https://archive.org/details/aletterda...

 

 

[alexa]

5 minutes ago, Diesel said:

33.20833333333333 arcmin

 

Hmm - There's a lot of 33's here 

[peter]

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

0.5 degrees is slightly less than the calculator but is a generally used amount.

 

33.20833333333333 arcmin

divide by 60

 = 0.55 degrees

The problem I see is if Polaris is at 90% above the north pole ,how can it be at 0%  at the equator,that statement is ridiculous,because the position of Polaris hasn't changed,your point of observation has and your line of sight definitely isn't 0%.

I'm getting a sense of that old French saying first the 8" per mile and the way it's applied and now this