Absolute proof.. can't deny.. the earth is flat

[lifepsyop]

Southern Hemisphere flights are the best way to silence Flat earthers. They have no explanation whatsoever and will usually pretend they don't exist.

Really, I always thought that was a bad argument because you can see on global flight path images that they always dip down south and then immediately back up north.. the flights don't make continuous circles around lower lattitudes. (And never cross all the way over Antarctica of course)

 

[prodromos]

Really, I always thought that was a bad argument because you can see on global flight path images that they always dip down south and then immediately back up north.. the flights don't make continuous circles around lower lattitudes. (And never cross all the way over Antarctica of course)

That makes it even worse for the flat earth model, making the flight distance much longer.

 

[RDKirk]

Santa is as real as your flat earth.

You've never seen Jesus. You believe the eyewitness accounts of people from 2,000 years ago. Yet you refuse to believe the born again Christians who landed on the moon 50 years ago. They are eyewitnesses. You refuse to believe the vast amount of evidence that demonstrates that first, the earth cannot be flat and second, it certainly is basically spherical. I really do not understand flat earthers.

It doesn't take going into space to demonstrate...and actually see the curvature of the planet. We can still use the same technique the ancient Greeks used 3500 years ago when they discovered the earth was spheroidal.

 

[prodromos]

Okay... maybe you should keep watching it because he is obviously not arguing that the sun and the stars are the same thing.

He is drawing an analogy in how perspective of a celestial body can appear inverted, depending on which horizon you're looking at.

Firat, there is no convergence of the stars due to perspective. The constellations remain exactly the same no matter where you view them from

Second, the vanishing point would be on the horizon, not somewhere up above the horizon

Also, he is defacto disclaiming the argument flat earthers give for crepuscular rays being evidence of a local sun. If the crepuscular rays diverge and the anti-crepuscular rays converge, it is evidence that they are in fact parallel and only appear otherwise due to perspective.

 

[lifepsyop]

Here is a flat earth response to that, using perspective visual demonstrations. it's actually pretty interesting:

x.com

x.com

Regarding the star rotation problem, I found a more in-depth explanation and modeling here:

x.com

x.com

x.com

x.com

 

[lifepsyop]

If the crepuscular rays diverge and the anti-crepuscular rays converge, it is evidence that they are in fact parallel and only appear otherwise due to perspective.

I think that was the point. The star field is such a large-scale object that it only appears to change direction of rotation due to perspective.

 

[lifepsyop]

there is no convergence of the stars due to perspective. The constellations remain exactly the same no matter where you view them from

I thought the point of your argument is that the appearance of the motion of stars is different based on where you view them from on earth.

 

[lifepsyop]

x.com

x.com

He talks fast and it took me several watches to wrap my head around it but I think it does make sense.

Basically, we have a limit to how far we can see, and at a certain point, when observing objects that are so big they cover opposing horizons, our eyes will optically force the appearance of convergence of the perspective of the object.

The illusion of different star rotation directions was most simply demonstrated with the fan blades attached in the middle by a long stem. (somewhere in the middle of the short video) They only appear to be spinning in opposite directions at the north and south horizons, but this is just your eye trying to resolve a massive scale object into a sensible perspective as it descends toward the horizon line.

 

[prodromos]

x.com

x.com

He talks fast and it took me several watches to wrap my head around it but I think it does make sense.

Basically, we have a limit to how far we can see, and at a certain point, when observing objects that are so big they cover opposing horizons, our eyes will optically force the appearance of convergence of the perspective of the object.

The illusion of different star rotation directions was most simply demonstrated with the fan blades attached in the middle by a long stem. (somewhere in the middle of the short video) They only appear to be spinning in opposite directions at the north and south horizons, but this is just your eye trying to resolve a massive scale object into a sensible perspective as it descends toward the horizon line.

Let us know when you've solved flight times between continents in the Southern Hemisphere on a flat earth model.

 

[prodromos]

I think that was the point. The star field is such a large-scale object that it only appears to change direction of rotation due to perspective.

So his point is to debunk other flat earth arguments? Good to know.

 

[prodromos]

I thought the point of your argument is that the appearance of the motion of stars is different based on where you view them from on earth.

Here's a thought experiment for you.
Stand on a rotating platform, looking up towards the axis of rotation. The sky will appear to rotate in the opposite direction around a 'celestial pole' above the axis of rotation. We will assume there are a number of clouds so you can see the rotation
Now turn around and face up away from the axis of rotation. The sky will appear to swing past in the opposite direction. It will NOT appear to rotate around an opposite 'celestial pole'. No amount of distance and perspective will change that. The only axis of rotation is the one you are facing away from. That is what the reality would be on a flat earth.

Someone looking due South from Johannesburg just before dawn will see the Southern Cross in front of them. At the same moment in time, someone looking due South from Buenos Aires where it will be just after dusk will also see the Southern Cross in front of them, just rotated a bit. Yet on a flat earth they would be looking in different directions that are roughly 90 degrees apart. This cannot be the apparent convergence of parallel lines due to perspective.

 

[lifepsyop]

Here's a thought experiment for you.
Stand on a rotating platform, looking up towards the axis of rotation. The sky will appear to rotate in the opposite direction around a 'celestial pole' above the axis of rotation. We will assume there are a number of clouds so you can see the rotation
Now turn around and face up away from the axis of rotation. The sky will appear to swing past in the opposite direction. It will NOT appear to rotate around an opposite 'celestial pole'. No amount of distance and perspective will change that. The only axis of rotation is the one you are facing away from. That is what the reality would be on a flat earth.

Atmospheric clouds are not on a celestial scale as the star field is. And in your example, nothing would actually be moving except for the observer, which doesn't seem to work as an analogy.

No amount of distance and perspective will change that.

We can see this is a real optical phenomenon below. Now just picture what this would look like if the sun rays were rotating. They would appear to be turning in different directions depending on the horizon, as if you're looking at two opposite spoked wheels from the middle of an axle.

Anticrepuscular rays, or antisolar rays,[1] are meteorological optical phenomena similar to crepuscular rays, but appear opposite the Sun in the sky. Anticrepuscular rays are essentially parallel, but appear to converge toward the antisolar point, the vanishing point, due to a visual illusion from linear perspective.

Anticrepuscular rays - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[prodromos]

Atmospheric clouds are not on a celestial scale as the star field is.

Most flat earthers argue that nothing is on a celestial scale. They argue that the sun, moon and stars are all in the 'firmament' which is local. Your argument is with them.
In any case, this was a thought experiment. The clouds were just for reference so the rotation of the sky is perceptible. You can just as easily do the same at night and use the stars for reference.

And in your example, nothing would actually be moving except for the observer, which doesn't seem to work as an analogy.

From the perspective of the observer it makes no difference if the earth is rotating while the sky remains still or the sky rotates while the earth is motionless. It works the same either way.

 

[prodromos]

We can see this is a real optical phenomenon below. Now just picture what this would look like if the sun rays were rotating.

They don't rotate though. You also ignore the fact that flat earthers claim crepuscular rays are not parallel and are evidence of a local sun. In their attempts to explain away proof of the globe earth, they end up contradicting each other.

They would appear to be turning in different directions depending on the horizon, as if you're looking at two opposite spoked wheels from the middle of an axle.

Since they don't rotate it seems pretty pointless to use a non existent phenomenon as evidence for something else. The divergence/convergence of parallel rays/shadows is due to perspective. There is no perspective at play with the stars in the night sky, we're not dealing with any parallel rays of light. The position and placement of stars relative to each other do not change regardless of where on earth they are viewed from, apart from some slight variation throughout the year due to parallax as the earth moves around the sun.

The fact of the matter is that everything we observe matches perfectly with the heliocentric globe model. No complex analogies need to be made up to explain anything. It all just fits. In P-brain's attempt to give a flat earth explanation, he has inadvertently debunked the arguments of some of his fellow flat earthers. This never happens with globe earth explanations.

 

[lifepsyop]

Most flat earthers argue that nothing is on a celestial scale. They argue that the sun, moon and stars are all in the 'firmament' which is local. Your argument is with them.

The sun, moon, and stars are by definition celestial. Even on a flat earth, the star field/dome is still on a massive scale relative to an observer on earth.

In any case, this was a thought experiment. The clouds were just for reference so the rotation of the sky is perceptible. You can just as easily do the same at night and use the stars for reference.

Okay, well the point about the stars is their unique scale and distance which are not analogous to relatively close proximity clouds. This is why stars appear to be rotating in the opposite direction looking towards the north and south. When you look out towards the southern horizon, your eye needs to resolve the appearance of those stars, and this optically forces them into a sensible perspective/vanishing point.

From the perspective of the observer it makes no difference if the earth is rotating while the sky remains still or the sky rotates while the earth is motionless. It works the same either way.

Optically, yes, I think you're correct.

 

[lifepsyop]

They don't rotate though. You also ignore the fact that flat earthers claim crepuscular rays are not parallel and are evidence of a local sun. In their attempts to explain away proof of the globe earth, they end up contradicting each other.

But even with a flat earth local sun, the same optical illusion is taking place, where sun rays that are physically diverging (or running parallel in globe model) have the optical illusion of re-converging on the opposite horizon.

This helps demonstrate how a star-field object many times larger than the scale of the observable sky itself and rotating around a celestial north pole, would have the illusion of also converging around an opposite "south pole" when the observer looked at the southern horizon.

Since they don't rotate it seems pretty pointless to use a non existent phenomenon as evidence for something else.

But surely you can imagine how the crepuscular rays would look if they did rotate?

The divergence/convergence of parallel rays/shadows is due to perspective. There is no perspective at play with the stars in the night sky,

That is exactly the point we're arguing about. You can't assume the thing being debated.

we're not dealing with any parallel rays of light. The position and placement of stars relative to each other do not change regardless of where on earth they are viewed from, apart from some slight variation throughout the year due to parallax as the earth moves around the sun.

They do not physically change, but their appearance changes relative to the observer, because the observer necessarily needs to find some kind of optical perspective resolution of them.

The fact of the matter is that everything we observe matches perfectly with the heliocentric globe model. No complex analogies need to be made up to explain anything. It all just fits.

Does it all just fit? Or have we made it fit. I think the debate is more philosophical than scientific. As post-enlightenment modern people, we demand that the Copernican view of the universe be true.

 

[prodromos]

But even with a flat earth local sun, the same optical illusion is taking place, where sun rays that are physically diverging (or running parallel in globe model) have the optical illusion of re-converging on the opposite horizon.

If they are physically diverging, then perspective won't bring them back together. That isn't how perspective works.

This helps demonstrate how a star-field object many times larger than the scale of the observable sky itself and rotating around a celestial north pole, would have the illusion of also converging around an opposite "south pole" when the observer looked at the southern horizon.

No, it really doesn't.

But surely you can imagine how the crepuscular rays would look if they did rotate?

I can imagine all kinds of non existent things.

That is exactly the point we're arguing about. You can't assume the thing being debated.

It is something completely made up by P-brain.

They do not physically change, but their appearance changes relative to the observer, because the observer necessarily needs to find some kind of optical perspective resolution of them.

That is complete nonsense.

Does it all just fit? Or have we made it fit.

It all fits. The Coriolis effect caused by the Earth's rotation, the seasons caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis, the solar and lunar eclipses which are accurately predicted down to the minute where and when they are visible with the globe model, the fact that the higher your elevation, the more the horizon drops below eye level, the 24 hour sun in Antarctica during Summer in the Southern Hemisphere

I think the debate is more philosophical than scientific. As post-enlightenment modern people, we demand that the Copernican view of the universe be true.

No, it is what we actually observe and it cannot be shoehorned into a flat earth model. There is nothing philosophical about it.

 

[lifepsyop]

There is no perspective at play with the stars in the night sky

I want to revisit the above claim you made, because I think it's central to our argument.

There is perspective at play every moment, from the point of view of every observer.

As a thought experiment for you. Take the conventional earth globe model but replace the conventional omni-directional star-field with a surrounding dome-like star-field structure similar to flat earth model. The bottom of the dome extends a huge distance below the globe earth's south pole.

I believe the same optical illusion effect would occur in a globe model, where you see the bottom edges of the star-field appearing to converge into another pole if viewed from lower and lower altitudes. The further the distance away from the south pole, the closer those stars would approach the horizon line and appear to converge.

Of course, in a flat earth model, I don't believe you'd ever be staring directly at the illusory "southern pole" (as you theoretically would from the southern pole of the globe earth model) ... and so in the flat earth model, the outer/lower edges of the star-field would appear to optically converge into the southern horizon, giving the appearance of a south pole from wherever the observer is standing.

 

[lifepsyop]

me: They do not physically change, but their appearance changes relative to the observer, because the observer necessarily needs to find some kind of optical perspective resolution of them.

That is complete nonsense.

No... it is directly observed... An observer has to resolve everything towards a vanishing point on the horizon... I believe you're coming into conflict with some fundamentals of optics and perspective.


"The rays are all parallel to each other, real columns of sunlit and shadowed air. In the west, perspective effects make them appear to converge towards the sun as they get more distant. They again appear to converge in the east, this time towards the antisolar point. The rays in the antisolar direction, are called anti-crepuscular. This image shows brilliantly that familiar crepuscular rays and the less well known anti-crepuscular rays are really the same objects."

Sky-wide rays and shadows

This article explores the phenomenon of sky-wide rays and shadows, revealing their parallel nature and the illusion of convergence towards the sun and antisolar point. It also highlights the Earth's shadow cast upon the atmosphere, showcasing the interplay between sunlight and atmospheric particles.

atoptics.co.uk

(that page was linked from NASA, btw: APOD: 2019 June 24 - Anticrepuscular Rays Converge Opposite the Sun)

There is nothing philosophical about it.

Oh, we both know it is ultimately a battle over metaphysical paradigms.

Globe vs. Flat Earth is the whole game.

400 years of post-enlightenment Copernican deism/atheism (not to mention evolutionism) goes poof and everyone has to admit we live on God's footstool.

 

[prodromos]

No... it is directly observed... An observer has to resolve everything towards a vanishing point on the horizon... I believe you're coming into conflict with some fundamentals of optics and perspective.

No, it is complete nonsense. No such thing is observed. Crepuscular rays exist because the sun is very distant such that light from the sun is essentially parallel when it reaches the earth. Gaps in the clouds causing the rays may be miles apart but appear to be very close due to the effect of perspective. That is directly observed. They also only occur at dusk or dawn, hence "crepuscular", and can only exist because the earth is a globe.

The stars of the night sky bear no correlation to the above. The constellations fill the entirety of our view and do not change in size or shape. There is no divergence or convergence, no optical phenomena occurring, it simply is.