The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Surely the van arken belt would stop humans reaching the moon?  (Read 5560 times)

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
My appologies.I write bfore I think. I meant southern hemisphere/below the equator

I don't see how that changes your statement, unless you think that the northern hemishphere is curved and the southern hemisphere is flat.... There aren't any odd kinks in the surface, so either the Earth is flat everywhere, or it is curved everywhere (hint: it's the second one)
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
antartica has never had someone walk the shore/coast/cliff line to measure it.the have been methods,but many explorers of the 1800s said that they believed the longitude line distances between them widened the further south they travelled from the equator.cook,rowbotham,de gama,james clark ross,william carpenter.
The Commonwealth Transantarctic Expedition travelled just over 2000 miles from sea to sea via the pole, which gives Antarctica a circumference of about 6300 miles. If the earth was a flat disc, it would have to be twice the circumference of the equator, nearly 50,000 miles. And there would be no south pole, which is a pity as lots of people seem to have planted flags in the same place.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
.i want to be educated
Is this true or have you already made up your mind?
Eg
?...so either the Earth is flat everywhere, or it is curved everywhere (hint: it's the second one)
If you genuinely want to learn, I would be prepared to take the time to talk about perspective and curvature, but no point if your mind is set!
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
My appologies.I write bfore I think. I meant southern hemisphere/below the equator

Hemiwhat? "Below"? You have blown your cover: you clearly think the earth is a sphere.
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
My appologies.I write bfore I think. I meant southern hemisphere/below the equator

I don't see how that changes your statement, unless you think that the northern hemishphere is curved and the southern hemisphere is flat.... There aren't any odd kinks in the surface, so either the Earth is flat everywhere, or it is curved everywhere (hint: it's the second one)
look up a picture of the flat earth.that will save the confusion.looks a bit like-actually it is the map on un flag.
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
antartica has never had someone walk the shore/coast/cliff line to measure it.the have been methods,but many explorers of the 1800s said that they believed the longitude line distances between them widened the further south they travelled from the equator.cook,rowbotham,de gama,james clark ross,william carpenter.
The Commonwealth Transantarctic Expedition travelled just over 2000 miles from sea to sea via the pole, which gives Antarctica a circumference of about 6300 miles. If the earth was a flat disc, it would have to be twice the circumference of the equator, nearly 50,000 miles. And there would be no south pole, which is a pity as lots of people seem to have planted flags in the same place.
I believe that was 69000miles/kms maybe over 3 years.and the length of antarticas shore/coastline is 17968-est 2012.established being the optimum word. Flags where?Ive never heard of a south pole they cant actually get to.I think you are spot on with the circumference being close to 50000 miles.if antartica is 75 degrees south,then there is about 1050miles(15 degrees) of land for a start?
you must look this up.it is interesting as hell-do you know they were going to shut down the space part of nasa not long ago-why would they.
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
My appologies.I write bfore I think. I meant southern hemisphere/below the equator

Hemiwhat? "Below"? You have blown your cover: you clearly think the earth is a sphere.
Ofcourse I believe it is a sphere like we were all told from day 1-but up until Columbus,the world was flat.and even Columbus wasn't the first as many know.europe had already been in contact with the west.what proof do you know off that the world is a sphere?
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
antartica has never had someone walk the shore/coast/cliff line to measure it.the have been methods,but many explorers of the 1800s said that they believed the longitude line distances between them widened the further south they travelled from the equator.cook,rowbotham,de gama,james clark ross,william carpenter.
The Commonwealth Transantarctic Expedition travelled just over 2000 miles from sea to sea via the pole, which gives Antarctica a circumference of about 6300 miles. If the earth was a flat disc, it would have to be twice the circumference of the equator, nearly 50,000 miles. And there would be no south pole, which is a pity as lots of people seem to have planted flags in the same place.
I believe that was 69000kms maybe over 3 years.and the length of antarticas shore/coastline is 17968-est 2012.established being the optimum word. Flags where?Ive never heard of a south pole they cant actually get to.I think you are spot on with the circumference being close to 50000 miles.if antartica is 75 degrees south,then there is about 1050miles(15 degrees) of land for a start?
you must look this up.it is interesting as hell-do you know they were going to shut down the space part of nasa not long ago-why would they.

also remember the difference between a statue mile and a nautical mile.which were you referring.look up the bedford experiment along with 100s of other experiments proving that there is no curvature on earth.do your research first and you will see that theres more scientific proof than equations this time.
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
.i want to be educated
Is this true or have you already made up your mind?
Eg
?...so either the Earth is flat everywhere, or it is curved everywhere (hint: it's the second one)
If you genuinely want to learn, I would be prepared to take the time to talk about perspective and curvature, but no point if your mind is set!
open.all ears.but if you think you can explain the Bermuda triangle mystery-turns out the chief nautical officer of that area was corrected by a college graduate that they had it all wrong and instruments were incorrect and pilots of ships and planes were drifting way off course and crashing etc. turns out the angles change the further east or west you go north.this was because magnetic north was slightly off centre.

the same happened at all of the CAPE'S of the world south of the equator.they were positive they were miles from land etc and they just weren't.they would drift 10miles a day apparently.that why no one uses the open south seas,they just follow the land-although there are quicker ways.

How can you explain curvature when there is none.perspective is what you were taught in school along with the globe.vanishing point.ye I know all that.Do you think an eagle sees what we see or 5 times better.it would probably say you were crazy.even the disappearing ships on the horizon can still be seen without dropping.

Ok.OK.OK-if you are correct-why doesn't the horizon curve from left to right-HMMMMMMMMMMMM
Its easier to fool someone than convince them they were fooled.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
if you are correct-why doesn't the horizon curve from left to right-
Mine does. Perhaps you should visit an optician as well as a psychiatrist.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Gary, you are throwing a mass of misconceptions and misinformation around and to be honest I don't have time to write a textbook. Would have been happy to cover the area I suggested, but I'll leave it there, and leave you to whatever.
Just don't try to convince your kids that this stuff is real, ok  ;)
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
if you are correct-why doesn't the horizon curve from left to right-
Mine does. Perhaps you should visit an optician as well as a psychiatrist.
a and b should be lower than the centre-that applies to the photo I attempted to copy and paste
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
A is in fact lower (at least closer to the bottom edge of the photo) than B. So what shape does that make the planet?
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
A is in fact lower (at least closer to the bottom edge of the photo) than B. So what shape does that make the planet?
The picture does not indicate a different shape of the earth,but it does make the earth seem flat over a 5 mile stretch possibly.Eratosthenes didn't think of this did he.
It depends what direction the picture was taken-but it aint curved is it and that's the strongest point I have so far. Ive never noticed a slanting horizon(L-R), so it could be the camera. Also,most pictures you have seen showing curvature of any kind would have been using reflecting lenses and not refracting due to cost and ease to use as refracting are a lot trickier apparently.
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
NOAA's official value for the total length of the U.S. shoreline is 95,471 miles.and antarctica in 1.4 times the size eh?

Do you know that Antarctica is 1.4 times bigger than the USA or Europe(FACT).that's huge-but that cant give it a coastline of 17000kms-can it?
 
My calculations show that Antarctica could be an average of 2070miles wide.thats 3312 kms.
the radius would be 1656kms.this is based on Antarcticas position average of 75 degrees lattitude.

so my estimate of the coastline of Antarctica on flat earth would be 40722miles/65155kms-estimate
the total circumference of flat earth would be 48866miles/78186kms-estimate
Interesting stuff
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
No, just bollocks. Reflecting lenses, indeed!
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
Ouch.I really appreciate anyone responding to my posts.I do not intend to annoy,but seek answers from clever and respected people and only those that care would respond.I cant thank you enough for putting up with me.I am discussing my research,whilst being knocked down for that.I don't get the impression others have done their research and believe in what they see.ask a surveyor what barriers they come across daily.they might say that I have many valid points and the Bedford experiment could either be right or wrong.However-its funny that we have not redone these experiments(gravity and sphere)in 120 years.It cant be a popular site as its only the moderators answering the questions.atmospheric refraction is insteresting too.

its a shame that this site could never prove gravity(and that objects of different sizes attract each other)
(of which newton did say planetary movement and gravity on earth were 2 different things)-and now the earth being a sphere. I was expecting good material like-the Bedford experiment that was redone and proved the earth was a sphere and many more things.
Its annoying to others when they think that they could never convince a non-believer,but when a believer challenges what they believe,then they are considered arrogant or mad.If all I say is true-then the others would be arrogant and mad.But you cant deny my picture,thus no-one is getting in this debate are they,or maybe there aren't that many members on here as u have p___d them all off?
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
.... Also,most pictures you have seen showing curvature of any kind would have been using reflecting lenses and not refracting due to cost and ease to use as refracting are a lot trickier apparently.
The reason you had this reaction from Alan is that you have confused a number of issues, as you are prone to do.
Mirror lenses (reflecting) tend to be telephoto, whereas extreme  wide angle lenses (which are often used for landscape photos can sometimes show a false curvature) are refracting.

If I thought it was worthwhile responding I would, but I did explain why ancients did not believe the earth was flat. However, you misquoted me on that and have since repeated the error so I can only assume you don't believe anything I have said or will say.
Bit like the gravity thread really, where you decided on a closed mind approach.

At the end of the day it's up to you whether a discussion flourishes, but if people see the discussion is pointless they will not join in.
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
.... Also,most pictures you have seen showing curvature of any kind would have been using reflecting lenses and not refracting due to cost and ease to use as refracting are a lot trickier apparently.
The reason you had this reaction from Alan is that you have confused a number of issues, as you are prone to do.
Mirror lenses (reflecting) tend to be telephoto, whereas extreme  wide angle lenses (which are often used for landscape photos can sometimes show a false curvature) are refracting.

If I thought it was worthwhile responding I would, but I did explain why ancients did not believe the earth was flat. However, you misquoted me on that and have since repeated the error so I can only assume you don't believe anything I have said or will say.
Bit like the gravity thread really, where you decided on a closed mind approach.

At the end of the day it's up to you whether a discussion flourishes, but if people see the discussion is pointless they will not join in.
1.you are correct.what shape are the mirrors?curved?
2.you re explanation was a wiki link-flawed as early man way before the day they calculated the circumference(still didn't prove a sphere)of the earth assumed many things.
The ancients understood that a lunar eclipse is caused when the earth gets between the sun and the moon. They saw that the shadow the earth casts on the moon is round. From that it wasn't too far of a leap for them to conclude the earth is a sphere.Note that the lunar eclipse observation mentioned by Gregory Grant suggests that the Earth is round in 2-dimensions (an Earth shaped like a flat disc is consistent with this observation), but does not provide evidence regarding the Earth's 3-dimensional shape. I believe the answer lies mostly in Greek's cosmic philosophy of the way the universe should be. They saw spheres as one of the most symmetrical simplistic shapes, and if our earth, which for them was at the center of the cosmos, would be the shape of anything it would be a sphere. Of course, the calculations they used and observations they made lined up with a sphere, so it seemed that it was the most reasonable thing for earth to be. Now, many philosophers of science might argue that the only reason one would choose some model over another, which calculate the same and take account of all phenomena, is mostly due to simplicity. Not because one necessarily represents reality more so than the other. Hence, I'm sure a creative philosopher could argue that your torus world view can't be shown to be wrong if you find clever ways to account for all the various phenomena.
 I have never not believed anything you or anyone has said-I only asked for the correct answer which has been evaded and answered with other peoples answers.there is no proof on earth of gravity or spherical earth.I say there is no proof,unless you have some.if someone didn't accept my answer,I would research more.it is a shame that this is straight forward observation that we have missed the point of my posts-why do you see the southern star trail with a central point from south America and not Australia/HHMMM.Im sure u have doubts about many things and dare to question as others would discredit you.how do u think I feel-I have no-one to talk about this with   
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Do you know, this is your most coherent post!
you are correct.what shape are the mirrors?curved?
It's not the shape of the mirror, that is only reflecting 'scope, it's the angle the light enters the lens.  Briefly, imagine a line from the centre of the lens to the far distance (say 1km) dead ahead, now imagine a similar line from centre of lens but off at 45deg still 1km, now imagine lots of these lines at different angles, these lines at 1km describe the arc of a circle, but the sensor in the camera is flat, so you are trying to squeeze curved perspective onto a flat surface, not easy, you get barrel distortion. Telephoto lenses have a narrow field of view so the image you are looking at is effectively flat, no problem. You will need to get a good book on optics to find out more.

The ancients understood that a lunar eclipse is caused when the earth gets between the sun and the moon. They saw that the shadow the earth casts on the moon is round. From that it wasn't too far of a leap for them to conclude the earth is a sphere.
Actually it wasn't that way round. Lunar eclipses are not very frequent, and chances are they will be cloud covered. Far more frequent - every month - are the phases of the moon. It doesn't take long to figure out that the moon's phases are due to it being a sphere (you can easily work out why) and then to wonder whether the earth might be as well. There are then a lot of confirming factors, ships masts in line, poles in lakes, the view from the bottom of wells, view from high mountain - have you ever seen the earth's shadow moving across the world below when you are 4000m up? Curved.
Ah yes, then there is the lunar eclipse. If it always occurred with moon overhead and sun below earth, what you say would work. But it also occurs with the moon low in the sky. Try this, take a coin and view it face on, a circle, now tilt it more and more, you will see the edge is an ellipse. So when the moon is low in the sky a disc world would project an ellipse onto the moon, it doesn't. I wonder why not. Why is it always the same circular shape?

why do you see the southern star trail with a central point from south America and not Australia/HHMMM.
Are you saying you have been to Australia and S America and seen this?
This conflicts with observations made by my daughter. Like me she is interested in celestial navigation and does a lot of star gazing and measurements. She has trekked across Africa, down S America, been to Vietnam, Antarctica and lived in Australia. She assures me the Crux is the same in all those locations. She does wonder if you were looking at the false cross or the diamond cross, apparently an easy mistake to make.

I have sailed north south, I have seen the curvature of the earth from high up, I have observed ships and lighthouses on the horizon, I have observed the lack of parallax in the North Star and measured its location, I have done the poles in water experiment with laser. I know what I believe from all that and other info I have. As you say, none of this is proof, but to be honest it troubles me not if others wish to believe something else, so I'm off to find more interesting ideas.


« Last Edit: 16/11/2015 23:05:46 by Colin2B »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
If the earth was flat, you could see New York from Sligo. You can't. Not a problem with distance - you can see craters on the moon, which even Gazza will admit, is a lot further away.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
.. you can see craters on the moon, which even Gazza will admit, is a lot further away.
But apparently Polaris is closer than the moon, if the perspective argument is to be believed. Of course then it would have a different E-W elevation (time coordinated) from Sligo and Cambridge, I assume you are going to claim it doesn't?
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
If the earth was flat, you could see New York from Sligo. You can't. Not a problem with distance - you can see craters on the moon, which even Gazza will admit, is a lot further away.
well the moon doesn't have to much atmosphere distorting our view.funny how you can see craters on an object 225/252000 miles away and its 2159 miles wide. amazing, so if you were high enough, youcould probably see 3000 miles away without the distortion of the atmosphere.why cant you see a cruiseship on the horizon-same anology.
 

Offline gazza711

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
Do you know, this is your most coherent post!
you are correct.what shape are the mirrors?curved?
It's not the shape of the mirror, that is only reflecting 'scope, it's the angle the light enters the lens.  Briefly, imagine a line from the centre of the lens to the far distance (say 1km) dead ahead, now imagine a similar line from centre of lens but off at 45deg still 1km, now imagine lots of these lines at different angles, these lines at 1km describe the arc of a circle, but the sensor in the camera is flat, so you are trying to squeeze curved perspective onto a flat surface, not easy, you get barrel distortion. Telephoto lenses have a narrow field of view so the image you are looking at is effectively flat, no problem. You will need to get a good book on optics to find out more.

well a flat bit of earth would be extremely hard to find I guess

The ancients understood that a lunar eclipse is caused when the earth gets between the sun and the moon. They saw that the shadow the earth casts on the moon is round. From that it wasn't too far of a leap for them to conclude the earth is a sphere.
Actually it wasn't that way round. Lunar eclipses are not very frequent, and chances are they will be cloud covered. Far more frequent - every month - are the phases of the moon. It doesn't take long to figure out that the moon's phases are due to it being a sphere (you can easily work out why) and then to wonder whether the earth might be as well. There are then a lot of confirming factors, ships masts in line, poles in lakes, the view from the bottom of wells, view from high mountain - have you ever seen the earth's shadow moving across the world below when you are 4000m up? Curved.
how can the earths shadow move acroos the earth?

Ah yes, then there is the lunar eclipse. If it always occurred with moon overhead and sun below earth, what you say would work. But it also occurs with the moon low in the sky. Try this, take a coin and view it face on, a circle, now tilt it more and more, you will see the edge is an ellipse. So when the moon is low in the sky a disc world would project an ellipse onto the moon, it doesn't. I wonder why not. Why is it always the same circular shape?

I guess we would mean new moon-have you ever studied the 28 day cycle day in /day out.waxing and waning moons?

why do you see the southern star trail with a central point from south America and not Australia/HHMMM.
Are you saying you have been to Australia and S America and seen this?
This conflicts with observations made by my daughter. Like me she is interested in celestial navigation and does a lot of star gazing and measurements. She has trekked across Africa, down S America, been to Vietnam, Antarctica and lived in Australia. She assures me the Crux is the same in all those locations. She does wonder if you were looking at the false cross or the diamond cross, apparently an easy mistake to make.

I have sailed north south, I have seen the curvature of the earth from high up, I have observed ships and lighthouses on the horizon, I have observed the lack of parallax in the North Star and measured its location, I have done the poles in water experiment with laser. I know what I believe from all that and other info I have. As you say, none of this is proof, but to be honest it troubles me not if others wish to believe something else, so I'm off to find more interesting ideas.

I have an idea for you.how can a waning moon get lit from a light source on the other side 10-14 days a month.bizarre.
you say curvature-ive been in an aeroplane hovering over London to get to luton and it was not curved.this was way before coming acroos the flat earth theory.look up at the sky with a flat earth perspective-you will believe that its not curved.
 

Offline mriver8

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile


Funny how the earth was believed flat for 10000 years until the 1st mason said otherwise 500 years ago.foolish eh.

If you really think he was the first to ponder that you are naive and hindering progression.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums