joe

LikeLike

]]>“And who they hell is going to come up with a standard unit of distance that is 3.26 light years anyway? That’s just a silly idea. It’s so close to a light year that you’d just talk in light years. That’s like deciding to come up with an extra standard unit of distance in the metric system that equals 2.7 kilometers. Who the hell does that?”

Maybe it’s the Imperial (pun intended) system – inches (2,54cm) feet (0,3048m), miles (1,609km), parsecs (3,26 ly) ]]>

Try answering the proof in the post you’re commenting on, instead of childishly sticking your fingers in your ears in the hope that it’ll magically go away.

LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>Also, their motion is circular for all observers. In the “pancake” idea their motion would be highly elliptical for observers closer to the equator.

In short, no. There is no possible solution to the Pole stars conundrum available to flat earthers.

Simple basic geometry demonstrates it’s impossible at every turn.

LikeLike

]]>1. If the flat earth “dome” is perfectly spherical, your objection holds up just fine

2. BUT what if the flat earth “dome” isn’t perfectly round? What if it’s more of a pancake shape?

3. I’m also basing this in the flat earther idea that the “heavens above” are painted onto the dome, flat against it.

Diagrams: https://i.imgur.com/uO6LoHg.png

As you can see, if the dome is perfectly spherical, the viewing angle of Polaris is barely affected. Easily viewable, debunked.

BUT if we observe the pancake shaped dome, the visibility diminishes at the equator as expected. This could also explain why polaris appears to be ovalular

Let me know what you think!

Best,

Aidan

LikeLike

]]>Why, oh why all flat-earthers believe that NASA is the only responsible for this “conspiracy”? China, Russia wouldn’t be glad to debunk NASA? Why they aren’t arguing with NASA. Why any of 194 remain countries on this world tells nothing?

You can see stars rotating counter-clockwise on north pole, clockwise on south pole, and nobody is telling this: from east to west (straight line) in any point of equator line.

Grab a copy of stellarium software and you can see the sky in realtime, accelerate time, change your position in the globe and see other stars and constellation. Same exercise to see Polaris dissapear when you move from a northern position to a southern one. The math don’t lie.

Let’s say Stellarium is “supervised” by NASA to show us we live in a globe; then the math in source code should be heavily manipulated. And I mention Stellarium because it’s open source software, anybody can grab a copy, explore and study the code, compile and run it. The math is there.

]]>Thanks for making the resource.

LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>The question you’re asking is one that I’ve spent a lot of time going through, and the mathematics and mechanics of the answer are tough to explain without a visual aid. I currently don’t have the time or resources to make a video on it, but I’d love to.

However, the main things to keep in mind are quite simple:

1) The horizon represents a circle centered on yourself, defining all the points you can see where your line of sight is tangential to the surface of the earth;

2) If you were on a perfect sphere with no bumps (like mountains or buildings) and you had eyes that could see perfectly everything 180 degrees in all directions, and you looked down at the point of the earth you stood on, you’d see the earth as a circle;

3) As you gain altitude, the surface area of that circle – and its circumference – would increase (you’d see more of the Earth).

Now we’ll get to the curve of the horizon.

If you look at a circle at any angle other than perpendicular (from directly above), it looks like an ellipsoid – thanks to the law of perspective, the points either side of your field of view look more separated than the points directly in front of you. Look at a penny square on and it looks like a circle, but turn the penny at an angle and it doesn’t look like a circle – the same thing is happening, only this time you’re standing in the centre of the penny.

What you’ll notice is that the curvature of the penny decreases as the angle you look at it decreases – from straight above it’s a circle, but side on it’s a flattened ellipsoid.

This just explains the tangential plane of the horizon – an imaginary plane that crosses through the surface of the sphere at all points where your line of sight is tangential to the surface of the sphere.

So, from this we can see that the horizon will look “flatter” when viewed at an angle than if you looked at it from directly above.

Next we have to look at the fact that the higher you are from a sphere, the more of it you can see.

Not only can you see further “over the horizon” (as in your original horizon), but you can see more of the arc of the horizon (because we don’t have 360 vision and so can’t see a 360 degree horizon on a sphere until we move far enough away from it).

What this means is that you never see the true curvature of any sphere until you’re far enough away to essentially see the whole half of the sphere in your view – half, because you can’t see in 4 dimensions and so can’t see the backside of a sphere, that’s why balls look circular).

This means that the arc or your field of view only encompasses a part of the arc of the sphere itself – and the size of the arc of the sphere you can see increases as you move away from it.

Since any small enough arc of any large enough curve will appear flat, then the curvature you perceive is a function of how far away you are from the sphere.

But there’s another complication.

As you move away from the sphere, the circle describing all points on the sphere you can see, as they are tangential to your line of sight, increases. And the curvature of a circle decreases as the circle’s size increases – it’s an inverse relationship.

Draw a big circle and draw a little circle inside it whose circumference touches the big circle, and you’ll see the small circle curves more tightly because curvature is inverse to size.

So what does this mean?

It means that as you move away from a sphere you will see more curvature due your field of vision encompassing more of the arc of the sphere, but conversely as your horizon grows the circle you can see will have a decreased curvature.

These are the 2 factors at play when you gain altitude. One allows you to see more curvature whilst the other decreases that curvature.

At some point the first effect takes over from the other – at a critical position to do with the amount of the arc that’s in your field of vision – but until then, these 2 factors play against each other.

This is more easily explained with visual aids, but suffice to say that the 2 main factors that go into how much curvature you perceive are antagonistic – one increases the curvature according to a certain function and the other decreases it according to another function.

It’s only when you reach a critical distance that one function mathematically takes over. What distance that is depends on the size of the sphere relative to your field of vision and the atmosphere of the sphere (thanks to diffraction).

Remember that you need to see a lot of arc to be able to discern the curvature of a large sphere. 8 inches per mile (that’s not quite how it works, but I get what you’re getting at without wanting to be pedantic about trigonometry) isn’t going to add up much over an arc of several tens to hundreds of miles with a field of vision of even 120 degrees (being generous to our focused field of vision).

Anyway, without really delving into he maths and using visual aids, it’s tough to get this across – and the Wikipedia page, whilst good in some respects, is missing a lot largely to do with the competing factors that enhance and dampen the amount of curvature you see.

I hope that something of this helps get a grasp of what’s involved, though.

LikeLike

]]>