Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Southern Hemisphere flights are the best way to silence Flat earthers. They have no explanation whatsoever and will usually pretend they don't exist.
That makes it even worse for the flat earth model, making the flight distance much longer.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)
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.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.
Firat, there is no convergence of the stars due to perspective. The constellations remain exactly the same no matter where you view them fromOkay... 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.
Here is a flat earth response to that, using perspective visual demonstrations. it's actually pretty interesting:
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.
there is no convergence of the stars due to perspective. The constellations remain exactly the same no matter where you view them from
Let us know when you've solved flight times between continents in the Southern Hemisphere on a flat earth model.
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.
So his point is to debunk other flat earth arguments? Good to know.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.
Here's a thought experiment for you.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.
No amount of distance and perspective will change that.
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.Atmospheric clouds are not on a celestial scale as the star field is.
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.And in your example, nothing would actually be moving except for the observer, which doesn't seem to work as an analogy.
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.We can see this is a real optical phenomenon below. Now just picture what this would look like if the sun rays were rotating.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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 surely you can imagine how the crepuscular rays would look if they did rotate?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,
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.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.
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.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.
If they are physically diverging, then perspective won't bring them back together. That isn't how perspective works.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.
No, it really doesn't.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.
I can imagine all kinds of non existent things.But surely you can imagine how the crepuscular rays would look if they did rotate?
It is something completely made up by P-brain.That is exactly the point we're arguing about. You can't assume the thing being debated.
That is complete nonsense.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.
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 HemisphereDoes it all just fit? Or have we made it fit.
No, it is what we actually observe and it cannot be shoehorned into a flat earth model. There is nothing philosophical about it.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.
There is no perspective at play with the stars in the night sky
That is complete nonsense.
There is nothing philosophical about it.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?