the myth of flat earth debunked again

[prodromos]

Everybody should not see the same stars. There should be at least two distinct different sets if we are really on a ball.

This does not follow. You seem to have a seriously poor grasp of basic geometry.

 

[contratodo]

However, I have satisfied myself through direct observation that the world must be approximately spherical

It is approximately spherical, we are under a dome, under the firmament.
The lie is that it is a complete ball.

 

[contratodo]

This does not follow. You seem to have a seriously poor grasp of basic geometry.

How so? Everybody should not see the same stars, if we are on a ball, those on the underside should have different stars available to see than those on the top side.

What is the given reason that Polaris can not be seen from the southern hemisphere?
One would have to see through the earth, yes?
Ok, what about looking the other way, how is it that there are not a vast array of other stars to see,
some other star in the center of the south pole? There is Sigma,
but one will also be able to see the big dipper and other constellations from the supposed top side.

 

[prodromos]

How so? Everybody should not see the same stars, if we are on a ball, those on the underside should have different stars available to see than those on the top side.

What is the given reason that Polaris can not be seen from the southern hemisphere?
One would have to see through the earth, yes?
Ok, what about looking the other way, how is it that there are not a vast array of other stars to see,
some other star in the center of the south pole?

If you are on the South side of the equator and cross over to the North of the equator, you don't suddenly go from being one set of stars to seeing a completely different set of stars. In fact if you are at the equator you will be able to see from the North celestial pole to the South celestial pole at night. You will only see half of the stars though because the other half will be obscured when your position on the earth rotates toward the sun. In Summer you will see one half of the night sky, and in Winter you will see the other half of the night sky because the earth's orbit has taken it to the other side of the sun.

 

[contratodo]

If you are on the South side of the equator and cross over to the North of the equator,

I'm talking about opposite ends of a supposed ball, not just crossing the middle of it.
One person generally upside down, the other right side up on top. They each should have a vast set of separate stars to see, if that ball they are on is truly in the middle of an infinite 'outer-space' full of stars in infinite directions.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm talking about opposite ends of a supposed ball, not just crossing the middle of it.
One person generally upside down, the other right side up on top. They each should have a vast set of separate stars to see, if that ball they are on is truly in the middle of an infinite 'outer-space' full of stars in infinite directions.

I'm in Sydney and I can't see the North star. If I'm in London I can't see the Southern Cross. Why can't I see both?

 

[sjastro]

What any telescope is looking at is called the "celestial sphere" I posted about it above.
If the earth is a ball, should not there be at least two sets of stars seen? one set seen from the north pole region,
and a totally different set seen from like the bottom of Africa?

How many times does it need to be explained before it finally sinks in the stars you see depends on where you are on earth because it is a sphere!!!

I live in Australia at a latitude of around 38⁰ S.
Since declination is a projection of latitude and the earth is spherical, I cannot see stars which have a declination of >52⁰ N (90⁰-38⁰).
It’s for this reason Polaris is below my northern horizon which has a declination of around 89⁰N.
If I was located on the equator at 0⁰ latitude, I would be able to see both the north and south celestial poles on my northern and southern horizons respectively.
If the earth is flat, Polaris would be seen at any location on earth.

How can the stars be seen as a dome over us? And mapped out as if they are on a dome over us?
What does the wiki page say about it?


"All celestial objects seem equally far away, as if fixed onto the inside of a sphere with a large but unknown radius,which appears to rotate westward overhead; meanwhile, Earth underfoot seems to remain still. For purposes of spherical astronomy, which is concerned only with the directions to celestial objects, it makes no difference if this is actually the case or if it is Earth that is rotating while the celestial sphere is stationary"

?!

So, if the world were stationary, the result would be the same .

Excuse me you don’t get to ignore the fact equatorial mounts completely destroy the notion of a flat non rotating earth and thereby conclude the notion is sound.
If you want defend the notion it is up to you to explain how equatorial mounts work in this case.

With regards to the Wiki quote, it’s obvious you do not understand what the paragraph is stating.
It is best explained with an analogy when driving a car; you are driving in a forward direction but stationary objects such trees and telephone poles appear to be moving backwards in your frame of reference.
As a driver you are stationary relative to the car but are moving in a forward direction relative to the road.
This leads to the science of relativity which states if the car is travelling at a constant velocity or in an inertial frame of reference, the physics is exactly the same if the car is moving forward and the trees and telephone poles are stationary, or the car is stationary and the trees and telephone poles are travelling backwards at a constant velocity.
This is the point of the Wiki paragraph the observer on earth is in an inertial frame and is stationary relative to the rotating earth and therefore sees celestial objects moving in a westerly direction while the earth beneath his feet is rotating in an easterly direction.

The earth however which is rotating is not an inertial frame but in an accelerated frame of reference which leads to real and fictitious forces.
The effects of centripetal acceleration which is a real force can be measured by noting a person’s weight is less at the poles where the centripetal acceleration is zero and more at the equator where it is at a maximum.
Then there are the fictitious Coriolis forces which causes air currents to deflect over the earth’s rotating surface resulting in the formation of hurricanes (or cyclones if you live in Australia).
The Coriolis effect also explains the mechanism of how a Foucault pendulum works.
None of these effects would be observed on a stationary flat earth.

 

[prodromos]

I'm talking about opposite ends of a supposed ball, not just crossing the middle of it.
One person generally upside down, the other right side up on top. They each should have a vast set of separate stars to see, if that ball they are on is truly in the middle of an infinite 'outer-space' full of stars in infinite directions.

If those two people are standing at the North and South poles, then that is indeed what they see, with a little bit of overlap at the celestial equator.

 

[Phil G]

Because the earth is not a ball, at the north pole Polaris is always above you.

One can see the Big Dipper, which is not far from and is in line with Polaris, in the southern hemisphere.

As one goes farther away from the center, the star at the center, Polaris, is further away.
The 'north pole' is the center. 'Antarctica' is a ring of ice around the domes edge.

Rubbish. The Big Dipper can only be seen above 26° South latitude. Below that it is below the horizon.

"So, can everyone on Earth see the Big Dipper? The answer is no. The Big Dipper is a far northern asterism, meaning it’s visible only to people in the Northern Hemisphere and a few lucky folks in the Southern Hemisphere who aren’t too far south. Those living farther south on our planet might feel left out when viewing this well-known cluster of stars."

Can Everyone On Earth See The Big Dipper? Easy Guide

Ever wonder "Can everyone on Earth see the Big Dipper?" The answer is no. The Big Dipper is a far northern asterism. So what's the alternative?

astrorover.com

And Polaris cannot be seen in the southern hemisphere. You really need to speak to people who know about these things rather than coming up with stuff that is just nonsense to people who observe the sky.

 

[Phil G]

I'm talking about opposite ends of a supposed ball, not just crossing the middle of it.
One person generally upside down, the other right side up on top. They each should have a vast set of separate stars to see, if that ball they are on is truly in the middle of an infinite 'outer-space' full of stars in infinite directions.

How about these star trails? Stars rotating around two center points with the celestial equator in the middle:

 

[Phil G]

I'm talking about opposite ends of a supposed ball, not just crossing the middle of it.
One person generally upside down, the other right side up on top. They each should have a vast set of separate stars to see, if that ball they are on is truly in the middle of an infinite 'outer-space' full of stars in infinite directions.

This is exactly the case, so you've just acknowledged the earth is spherical without even knowing it!

I live in the northern hemisphere and I cannot see the easily seen (in the southern hemisphere) Southern Cross. Also in the southern hemisphere, Orion, which is near the celestial equator, is seen upside down. Even the moon is seen upside down in the southern hemisphere compared to the northern hemisphere.

Why do the constellations and the Moon appear upside down from the Southern Hemisphere?

In the Southern Hemisphere, an object near the celestial equator looks upside down and reversed compared to a northern perspective.

www.astronomy.com

 

[Phil G]

Thank you for your detailed reply. I realise you are sincere. However, I have satisfied myself through direct observation that the world must be approximately spherical. What you claim to have observed is in direct contradiction to what is observable. Also you have demonstrated a poor grasp of three dimensional geometry. Further discussion in the matter would be fruitless. I shall do my best not to trouble you again and my very best not to waste any more time "marking this whole thread".

The lack of basic knowledge among FE proponents (sincere or otherwise) is indeed astonishing.

 

[d taylor]

The lack of basic knowledge among FE proponents (sincere or otherwise) is indeed astonishing.

-
​

Any time you want to meet at a beach, a park, etc.. and prove your so called observed globe earth. Oh and do not bring your science book, i want you to prove by observation the earth is a globe.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

-
​

Any time you want to meet at a beach, a park, etc.. and prove your so called observed globe earth. Oh and do not bring your science book, i want you to prove by observation the earth is a globe.

The picture below is taken from the beach in the town I live on the North coast of Wales, facing roughly north-north-west (I didn't have a compass so I had to make best guess estimate).
About 70 miles in that direction is the Isle of Man in the Irish Sea. If the Earth was flat, I should easily be able to see the southern edge of the Isle of Man, which has cliffs around Pistol Bay and are much higher elevation than my own town's elevation of sea-level.

But I can't see anything at sea level. Just the horizon.

 

[Ophiolite]

In an effort to add some levityto the thread and simultaneously deliver a "story with a moral", here is an account of something that happened to me in the mid-1970s. At that time I was living in Singapore, in a house in Eng Kong Park - a residential area off the end of Bukit Timah. I had decided to move from there to an apartment a few hundred metres from Orchard Road, near the junction with Scotts Road. (I mention these details to add local colour and for the benefit of @Estrid, who is familiar with Singapore.)

I was single at the time and had a limited amount of material to move, but it was still a couple of loads for the company pickup truck which I and a colleague had borrowed for the purpose. On both trips we noticed when we got to Orchard Road that a lot of people were taking unusual interest in the sky, craning their necks upwards and we spent considerable time discussing the cause of this peculiar behaviour. The following day the mystery was solved by a short report, in the Straits Times, about the lunar eclipse of the previous evening. We were duly embarrassed by our foolishness.

The moral of the story? All we had to do to solve the mystery was to look up at the sky and make an objective observation. I hope the relevance to the thread is clear.

 

[Phil G]

-
​

Any time you want to meet at a beach, a park, etc.. and prove your so called observed globe earth. Oh and do not bring your science book, i want you to prove by observation the earth is a globe.

I live near the coast. Here is a photo I took of an island approximately 21 miles away. My location was about 20 feet above sea level.

Now here's a photo of the same island I took after I climbed to a higher location at the same 21 mile distance. It's about 190 feet above sea level.

Much more of the island is visible. At the lower location, the lower regions of the island are obscured by the horizon.

I can repeat this all day long any day the weather allows. It's always pretty much the same. And it cannot be explained by perspective as, on a flat earth, the full side profile of the island should be visible no matter what the elevation from where I look. Even using high magnification, the lower regions of the island are always below the horizon at the lower location.

 

[Phil G]

The picture below is taken from the beach in the town I live on the North coast of Wales, facing roughly north-north-west (I didn't have a compass so I had to make best guess estimate).
About 70 miles in that direction is the Isle of Man in the Irish Sea. If the Earth was flat, I should easily be able to see the southern edge of the Isle of Man, which has cliffs around Pistol Bay and are much higher elevation than my own town's elevation of sea-level.

But I can't see anything at sea level. Just the horizon.

View attachment 345006

I live in Ireland and I have a FE believing friend. He was convinced that he could see the Isle of Man from my local beach, about 85 miles away. He insisted the island I posted above is the Isle of Man! It's actually Lambay Island. He acknowledges his mistake now, but he never addresses why he can't see the Isle of Man from the beach.

 

[d taylor]

The picture below is taken from the beach in the town I live on the North coast of Wales, facing roughly north-north-west (I didn't have a compass so I had to make best guess estimate).
About 70 miles in that direction is the Isle of Man in the Irish Sea. If the Earth was flat, I should easily be able to see the southern edge of the Isle of Man, which has cliffs around Pistol Bay and are much higher elevation than my own town's elevation of sea-level.

But I can't see anything at sea level. Just the horizon.

View attachment 345006

-
​

What is your proof that human vision has the ability to see that far on a flat plane.

 

[d taylor]

I live near the coast. Here is a photo I took of an island approximately 21 miles away. My location was about 20 feet above sea level.

View attachment 345008

Now here's a photo of the same island I took after I climbed to a higher location at the same 21 mile distance. It's about 190 feet above sea level.

View attachment 345009

Much more of the island is visible. At the lower location, the lower regions of the island are obscured by the horizon.

I can repeat this all day long any day the weather allows. It's always pretty much the same. And it cannot be explained by perspective as, on a flat earth, the full side profile of the island should be visible no matter what the elevation from where I look. Even using high magnification, the lower regions of the island are always below the horizon at the lower location.

-
​

Ok so and that proves you can take a photo. Again prove to me that, a humans vision, should be able to see great distances on a flat plane.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

-
​

What is your proof that human vision has the ability to see that far on a flat plane.

You're the second person who's made the claim that human line of sight is finite, and I find that horribly convenient that you seem to think that human sight stops at 3 miles which coincidentally is the same distance as the horizon on a globe.