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

[prodromos]

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.

That is not what is observed. Stars simply appear over the horizon in the East and disappear over the horizon in the West. There is no 'convergence' observed near the horizon.

 

[prodromos]

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

I don't see that at all. One view is the result of a myriad of observations, the other is the result of a rigid, literal interpretation of a few verses of Scripture.

 

[lifepsyop]

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.

So... you accept the phenomenon is real (as observed with the convergence of anti-crepuscular rays at the anti-solar horizon)

But then you're just asserting that no such convergence can exist with stars, for unexplained reasons.

I gave you a flat earth model explanation of how stars could display the apparent effect of converging on a "southern pole". And your response is "that's wrong because they're not converging."

 

[prodromos]

I gave you a flat earth model explanation of how stars could display the apparent effect of converging on a "southern pole".

No, you gave an assertion that an atmospheric phenomenon corresponded to an identical phenomenon on a cosmic level, with no evidence

And your response is "that's wrong because they're not converging."

You made the assertion that they were converging with no evidence. We know they don't converge because man has been observing them for millenia.

 

[lifepsyop]

No, you gave an assertion that an atmospheric phenomenon corresponded to an identical phenomenon on a cosmic level, with no evidence

So, expand on that... are you implying that objects stop obeying the laws of perspective if they are far enough away?

You made the assertion that they were converging with no evidence. We know they don't converge because man has been observing them for millenia.

I said the phenomenon of convergence would explain the observation.

 

[prodromos]

So, expand on that... are you implying that objects stop obeying the laws of perspective if they are far enough away?

I have already explained that the positions of stars and constellations relative to each other do not change regardless of where you view them from. People thousands of miles apart see exactly the same constellations, exactly the same size (the distance between the stars is measured by angle).
Since their view does not change with distance it means that the stars are so far away that the diameter of the earth is minuscule in comparison.
So no, perspective does not play a role in how the stars appear.

 

[lifepsyop]

I have already explained that the positions of stars and constellations relative to each other do not change regardless of where you view them from. People thousands of miles apart see exactly the same constellations, exactly the same size (the distance between the stars is measured by angle).

But you haven't explained why those positions should necessarily change in a flat earth model. I don't see why they would.

Since their view does not change with distance it means that the stars are so far away that the diameter of the earth is minuscule in comparison.
So no, perspective does not play a role in how the stars appear.

People's view does change though. You are able to see different angles of the star field depending on how far north or south you are. The further south you are, the more the north polar stars will have appeared to disappear over the northern horizon line. You will then be closer to the outer edge of the star field. When you look at the southern horizon you will see this outer edge of stars converging towards a vanishing point.

The flat earth and globe earth models are just inversions of each other.

The globe earth model is basically just reverse engineering this apparent convergence of a circular star field on the flat-earth southern horizon and instead claiming the stars appear this way because the southern part of the earth itself physically converges into the south pole. (which nobody can privately explore of course)

(and of course the globe model has to also make the stars hugely astronomical distances away to explain why they remain in the same constellation shapes even though you are supposedly riding a heliocentric vortex hurdling through space at hundreds of thousands of mph)

 

[prodromos]

But you haven't explained why those positions should necessarily change in a flat earth model. I don't see why they would.

If you are arguing that the stars are in the firmament dome of the flat earth model that has been put forth in these threads, then the stars are necessarily local on a cosmic scale, and a change of viewing distance would change the viewing angle between the stars enough to be measurable

People's view does change though. You are able to see different angles of the star field depending on how far north or south you are. The further south you are, the more the north polar stars will have appeared to disappear over the northern horizon line.

The viewing angle between any two stars which are visible from different locations on earth remains exactly the same

You will then be closer to the outer edge of the star field. When you look at the southern horizon you will see this outer edge of stars converging towards a vanishing point.

A person looking at the stars around the South Celestial Pole in Antarctica won't be looking towards the horizon, they will be looking straight up. The same for someone in the Arctic looking at Polaris, straight up. Your "vanishing point" explanation is complete nonsense.

The flat earth and globe earth models are just inversions of each other.

That is not even remotely true.

The globe earth model is basically just reverse engineering this apparent convergence of a circular star field on the flat-earth southern horizon and instead claiming the stars appear this way because the southern part of the earth itself physically converges into the south pole. (which nobody can privately explore of course)

People go there all the time, including privately. Someone is paying the expenses for both a flat earther and a globe earther to travel to Antarctica during this Summer so they can witness the 24hour sun, which also occurs in the Artic during the northern Summer. This is something that is impossible on the flat Earth model and every flat earther denies that it happens, which is what motivated this guy to pay for representatives of both models to go to Antarctica and settle the argument once and for all.

(and of course the globe model has to also make the stars hugely astronomical distances away to explain why they remain in the same constellation shapes even though you are supposedly riding a heliocentric vortex hurdling through space at hundreds of thousands of mph)

The universe is HUGE, and why wouldn't it be when it was created by the infinite God. The limited snow globe put forward by flat earthers reflects a limited god. The immense reality of our universe reflects the infinite God.

It is ironic that you mock the speed at which the sun and earth are travelling. The sun is one star among millions in the milky way galaxy, which is a slowly rotating spiral galaxy. If you are sitting on a rotating merry-go-round and you have friends sitting in other locations on the merry-go-round, do their positions change as the merry-go-round rotates?

On the other hand, most flat earthers deny the existence of gravity, so in order for things to fall down at the rate they do, the flat earth has to be accelerating constantly upwards at 9.8 metres per second squared. Since it has been doing that for at least 6 thousand years, the flat earth must now be travelling at multiple times the speed of light

 

[RDKirk]

The universe is HUGE, and why wouldn't it be when it was created by the infinite God. The limited snow globe put forward by flat earthers reflects a limited god. The immense reality of our universe reflects the infinite God.

This part.

 

[lifepsyop]

If you are arguing that the stars are in the firmament dome of the flat earth model that has been put forth in these threads, then the stars are necessarily local on a cosmic scale, and a change of viewing distance would change the viewing angle between the stars enough to be measurable

You keep asserting this would be the case without explanation. The starfield is gigantic from the perspective of an observer on earth. This is the very reason it is always apparently converging and vanishing towards the horizon.

The stars are much weirder in your model... Remember, you believe you are hurdling through space in a vortex traveling half a million miles per hour... and yet all the stars and constellations remain the same. I guess that's why you need them to be so far away.

A person looking at the stars around the South Celestial Pole in Antarctica won't be looking towards the horizon, they will be looking straight up. The same for someone in the Arctic looking at Polaris, straight up. Your "vanishing point" explanation is complete nonsense.

You don't think there's a vanishing point when you look up?

People go there all the time, including privately.

Equivocation. People are not allowed to freely explore the region of Antarctica. They are only allowed limited contact with the continent in approved areas / guided tours. I'm sure you know that.

 

[JSRG]

People go there all the time, including privately. Someone is paying the expenses for both a flat earther and a globe earther to travel to Antarctica during this Summer so they can witness the 24hour sun, which also occurs in the Artic during the northern Summer. This is something that is impossible on the flat Earth model and every flat earther denies that it happens, which is what motivated this guy to pay for representatives of both models to go to Antarctica and settle the argument once and for all.

That's interesting. I wonder what the flat Earther will say if they see the 24 hour sun?

 

[prodromos]

You keep asserting this would be the case without explanation.

Not true. I've stated it very clearly. Perhaps you hold to a different flat earth model to what has been argued here by others, but you have not made that clear. Do you believe the sun, moon and stars are in a firmament dome above the earth? If so, how high do you believe that firmament to be and what evidence do you have to support your view?

The starfield is gigantic from the perspective of an observer on earth. This is the very reason it is always apparently converging and vanishing towards the horizon.

You have yet to provide any distance estimates, but according to other flat earthers it is much closer and smaller than you appear to be arguing. But since you haven't given any specifics, it is difficult to know exactly what your claims are.

The stars are much weirder in your model... Remember, you believe you are hurdling through space in a vortex traveling half a million miles per hour... and yet all the stars and constellations remain the same. I guess that's why you need them to be so far away.

I gave you an analogy explaining why the constellations don't change despite the motion of the stars. You haven't responded to that. Nor have you responded to the absolutely ridiculous speed the earth must be travelling upwards in the flat earth model in order for things to fall at a rate of 9.8 metres per second squared

You don't think there's a vanishing point when you look up?

You need to make up your mind what your argument is. I've pointed out that it is only parallel lines that appear to converge due to perspective while lines that actually diverge will never converge due to perspective. You've ignored that.

Equivocation. People are not allowed to freely explore the region of Antarctica. They are only allowed limited contact with the continent in approved areas / guided tours. I'm sure you know that.

Where is that stated in the Antarctica treaty? It seems pretty clear that you've never actually read it.

 

[prodromos]

That's interesting. I wonder what the flat Earther will say if they see the 24 hour sun?

Well thus far I don't think any of the flat earthers who have been nominated for the trip are willing to go on an all expenses paid trip to Antarctica. Flat Earth Dave was the first one nominated, but he refused to go, even though he has said multiple times prior to this being organised that he would happily go to Antarctica in the Summer to prove there was no 24 hour sun. The present nominee is Jeranism, but he is unwilling to be the sole flat earther as a couple of other globe earthers are joining the expedition at their own expense. If you've watched "Beyond the Curve", Jeran was the one who did an experiment with holes cut in large panels at the same height and spaced far apart, then had someone further down hold a torch at the same height as the holes. Since he couldn't see the torch light he had his colleague hold the torch above his head whereupon it appeared through the holes. His response was exactly what you just posted, "Interesting".

 

[lifepsyop]

Not true. I've stated it very clearly.

No, you just keep asserting that in a flat earth model there would be visible distortions in the perspective of constellations base on where you're viewing them from earth. The star field would have to be very small for that to be the case. But even on the flat earth model, the stars are vast distances away.

Our observation is that the stars do not distort in this way. You have to prove why they necessarily would in a flat earth model, not just assert it.

Perhaps you hold to a different flat earth model to what has been argued here by others, but you have not made that clear. Do you believe the sun, moon and stars are in a firmament dome above the earth?
If so, how high do you believe that firmament to be and what evidence do you have to support your view?

You have yet to provide any distance estimates, but according to other flat earthers it is much closer and smaller than you appear to be arguing. But since you haven't given any specifics, it is difficult to know exactly what your claims are.

You have yet to prove there is even a problem. You can't just invent a problem and then demand I disprove it.

The distance to the stars would be one which essentially exceeds our limit of vision, and thus negates any perspective distortion of constellation shapes. That is just a given with the model.

You'd have to demonstrate why the stars cannot be such a distance in an FE model but you don't even have a reason to do that, it's just an arbitrary limitation you're placing.



Your heliocentric / acentric view proposes hurling upon a vortex through space at 500,000 MPH. It really doesn't seem like this is happening, and it also seems pretty convenient to place the stars so far away that we've never seen the star patterns visibly change over thousands of years. 500,000 miles per hour over thousands of years.

You need to make up your mind what your argument is. I've pointed out that it is only parallel lines that appear to converge due to perspective while lines that actually diverge will never converge due to perspective. You've ignored that.

That doesn't seem to make sense. If parallel lines can converge, then it stands to reason that at least some measure of divergence may also converge.

What we actually observe in the sky is divergences and convergences.

Also, as far as I know, you haven't demonstrated your claim of "parallel" sun rays. That's not what we observe.

Where is that stated in the Antarctica treaty? It seems pretty clear that you've never actually read it.

As far as I'm aware, 98% of private visitation to Antarctica is on the same location of the Antarctic Peninsula.

Setting aside the legality issue, it really is an untraversed region. People may visit some of the edges of the region, but it's not like people are traveling over the south pole itself.

Such travel over the south pole would completely shatter the flat earth theory and yet it is exactly that type of travel that does not occur.

 

[lifepsyop]

Nor have you responded to the absolutely ridiculous speed the earth must be travelling upwards in the flat earth model in order for things to fall at a rate of 9.8 metres per second squared

I don't hold this belief whatsoever.

You're bringing in fundamental assumptions about the thing we know nothing about that we like to call Gravity, ... something that is admitted to not make any sense even by its chief proponents...

 

[prodromos]

No, you just keep asserting that in a flat earth model there would be visible distortions in the perspective of constellations base on where you're viewing them from earth. The star field would have to be very small for that to be the case. But even on the flat earth model, the stars are vast distances away.

Which flat earth model would that be. Give specifics. My assertions are based on what other flat earthers have argued in the past. If you are arguing something different then you need to give your reasons

Our observation is that the stars do not distort in this way. You have to prove why they necessarily would in a flat earth model, not just assert it.

I've told you. Flat earthers argue that the sun moon and stars are in a solid firmament dome above the flat earth. If you are arguing something different then you need to explain what it is you are arguing.

You have yet to prove there is even a problem. You can't just invent a problem and then demand I disprove it.

The distance to the stars would be one which essentially exceeds our limit of vision, and thus negates any perspective distortion of constellation shapes. That is just a given with the model.

We can't see things which exceed the limits of our vision. So how come we can still see them? What are the limits of our vision? You don't give specifics, just baseless claims.

You'd have to demonstrate why the stars cannot be such a distance in an FE model but you don't even have a reason to do that, it's just an arbitrary limitation you're placing.

Its a limit other flat earthers have argued. Its not one I came up with.

Your heliocentric / acentric view proposes hurling upon a vortex through space at 500,000 MPH. It really doesn't seem like this is happening, and it also seems pretty convenient to place the stars so far away that we've never seen the star patterns visibly change over thousands of years. 500,000 miles per hour over thousands of years.

View attachment 351618

Unlike your argument, the heliocentric model is based on actual measurements enabled by parallex when the earth is at opposite sides of the sun, and because star positions have actually changed over thousands of years.
You still haven't addressed the merry-go-round analogy

That doesn't seem to make sense.

To you.

If parallel lines can converge, then it stands to reason that at least some measure of divergence may also converge.

No, it does not stand to reason.

What we actually observe in the sky is divergences and convergences.

View attachment 351620

Flat earthers would typically dismiss photos like the above as fish eye lens distortion.

Also, as far as I know, you haven't demonstrated your claim of "parallel" sun rays. That's not what we observe.

Sure it is. It's why shadows cast by sunlight have sharp, defined edges. You even posted yourself that anti-crepuscular rays are essentially parallel back in post #1952

As far as I'm aware, 98% of private visitation to Antarctica is on the same location of the Antarctic Peninsula.

Setting aside the legality issue

What legality issue? Please be specific and provide supporting documents.

it really is an untraversed region. People may visit some of the edges of the region, but it's not like people are traveling over the south pole itself.

Since the signing of the Antarctic Treaty their have been over 100 expeditions to Antarctica, many of which traversed the South pole

List of Antarctic expeditions - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Such travel over the south pole would completely shatter the flat earth theory and yet it is exactly that type of travel that does not occur.

It has occurred and continues to occur, which completely shatters the flat earth delusion. On that, we finally agree.

 

[prodromos]

I don't hold this belief whatsoever.

You're bringing in fundamental assumptions about the thing we know nothing about that we like to call Gravity, ... something that is admitted to not make any sense even by its chief proponents...

More baseless assertions. Who are these 'chief proponents' and where have they said it doesn't make sense?
We know a great deal about gravity. It is incredibly well tested. It is why all large celestial masses are sperical in shape, including the Earth.

 

[HantsUK]

Setting aside the legality issue, it really is an untraversed region. People may visit some of the edges of the region, but it's not like people are traveling over the south pole itself.

Such travel over the south pole would completely shatter the flat earth theory and yet it is exactly that type of travel that does not occur.

Agreed. And it has been done.

Just over ten years someone even cycled.

On 27th December 2013 Maria Leijerstam became the first person in the world to cycle from the edge of the Antarctic continent to the South Pole. She also set the new World Record for the fastest human powered coast to pole traverse, completing her journey in 10 days, 14hrs and 56 minutes.

Report

World's first cycle to the South Pole achieved

Shortly before Christmas, we heard about 35 year-old British adventurer Maria Leijerstam's planned attempt to ride to the South Pole on a recumbent fat-tired tricycle. On December 27th at 1am GMT, she achieved that goal, becoming the first person to ever successfully cycle from the edge of the…

newatlas.com

Ten years on, Maria Leijerstam recollecting her record cycle ride

10 year Anniversary South Pole Special Edition Full Fat

ICE 10 year south pole anniversary special edition full fat

www.icetrikes.co

Of course, if a Flat Earther were to accept reports like this, they would no longer be a Flat Earther. Clearly they don't accept such reports.

 

[lifepsyop]

More baseless assertions. Who are these 'chief proponents' and where have they said it doesn't make sense?

Isaac Newton to Neil DeGrasse Tyson and probably everyone in between. "spooky action from a distance"

We know a great deal about gravity. It is incredibly well tested.

We don't know anything about the phenomenon called gravity. We don't know if it's an actual force or not.

Gravity is also described as the expression of "spacetime curvature"... or a property of space and time itself.

It's weird and probably not as well tested as you think. To make the current theory of relativity and gravitation work, physicists have had to make up a completely imaginary, undetectable object that fills 85% of the universe. (known as Dark Matter). It's not a good sign for a theory when you have to make things up like that to hold it together.

It is why all large celestial masses are sperical in shape, including the Earth.

that's assuming the conclusion to what is being debated

 

[lifepsyop]

Agreed. And it has been done.

Just over ten years someone even cycled.

On 27th December 2013 Maria Leijerstam became the first person in the world to cycle from the edge of the Antarctic continent to the South Pole. She also set the new World Record for the fastest human powered coast to pole traverse, completing her journey in 10 days, 14hrs and 56 minutes.

Not really. She traveled inland a way and then returned back to her starting point. Even claiming she reached the "south pole" assumes the globe model in question.

I'm talking about regular accessible flights going over the south pole and continuing to the other side.

If an average person was able to fly in roughly a straight line from Australia to South America, going over the south pole itself... well Flat Earth theory would be toast. However, in the age of affordable mass commercial flights all over the world, this type of route does not happen, (and likely will never happen if the earth is indeed flat)