Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: gazza711 on 27/09/2015 19:35:04
-
I saw an intersting video proving that a human hasnt travelled further than 400 miles from earth.the radiation belt at 1000miles would destroy life maybe.as well there were examples of 3 different origins of light with 3 shadows in different directions.so did man ever travel to the moon.picturesand mirrors left on the planet are unmanned missions maybe.
-
the radiation belt at 1000miles would destroy life maybe
No. The van Allen belts consist of charged particles (principally electrons and protons) which can be absorbed in an aluminium or polyethylene shield, if you need to spend a long time in them. But travel to the moon or high earth orbit only requires a short spell in the belts anyway. They are more of a problem for longterm unmanned satellites.
-
I saw an intersting video proving that a human hasnt travelled further than 400 miles from earth.
Come on Gary, you can't believe everything you see on u tube.
-
Funny how the earth was believed flat for 10000 years until the 1st mason said otherwise 500 years ago.foolish eh.
-
Funny how the earth was believed flat for 10000 years
This is a common myth.
The ancients knew the world was round and made a pretty accurate job of calculating its circumference. Columbus knew it was round, he was expecting to find India.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
-
They didnt.the bible concurs and no evidence that the earth was believed round.for every theory is an equivalent and opposite theory!
-
They didnt.the bible concurs and no evidence that the earth was believed round.
The bible (Old Testament) was written as a book of history, law and prophecy for the Jewish people. As such it is not a scientific text and it ignores the culture and science of other nations. It does not say the earth is flat, but does in a number of places use words to describe the earth and heavens which are translated as circles or spheres. It also describes the earth as hanging in space, of having a dark and light side and when talking of his return Jesus refers to it occurring at day and night which theologians take to refer to both sides of the earth.
The early Christian church based much of its belief about the world and science on the teachings of Aristotle. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) believed the universe is finite and spherical with a stationary spherical earth at its center. Enclosing the whole universe is the sphere of the Prime Motion turned by the First Unmoved Mover. Inside that were transparent spheres containing fixed and unchanging stars, planets, moon and sun. In circa 230 BC, Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth using shadows from the sun and those calculations assume the earth is a sphere.
We are often told that the early church took a very literal translation of the Bible, but this is not true. Clement and Origen (185-254 A.D.) sought to reconcile Greek wisdom (Aristotle's thoughts in philosophy and sciences) with scriptural wisdom. They viewed separate literal, moral, and spiritual senses of Bible passages and this allegorical interpretation was accepted by Augustine (354-430 A.D.) and the result was a mixing of philosophy, culture, and theology.
We are also told that Galileo clashed with the church because he believed the earth was round, in fact it was because the church believed Aristotle and thought the sun went around the earth. This is not an unreasonable assumption (even today surveys show that 16% of Americans think this is true) and from a relativistic viewpoint it is correct. However, Arab mathematicians having adopted the decimal system, and more importantly a symbol for 0, began to look at the motion of the planets and stars. Despite very complex calculations they could find no common explanation for the movements if all the heavens rotated around the earth. By Galileo's time this was a big issue, he had seen the Arab calculations and he was in correspondence with other leading scientists such as Kepler and he soon realised that the only reasonable assumption was that the earth and planets orbit around the sun. But, the question of whether they were spheres was never in doubt.
You may believe whatever you wish and it will have no impact on reality. However, it is unreasonable to assume that our predecessors were stupid, they were far more intelligent than many of the people who post on U tube.
-
I love your responses. they are honest and always correct and that's why I ask questions on here.but there is nothing in this world now that can convince me the world is a sphere.the bible and church carry culture.its easier to fool someone thatn make them believe they were foold. maths cant do much for observation.the flights that exist on the web for the shortest routes,then disappear.GPS doesn't have to be an orbiting thing. satellites rarely seen in space.i could go on.ask yourself any question,and put flat earth next to that in google, and there is a perfect explanation for all of that. im not gullable,I just observe.
its interesting tie-ing all these ideas up with pyramids having 6-8 sides I believe.ships go E-W and not N-S.planes in southern hemisphere loss gps for 4-6 hours at times for no reason.greenland being 5 times smaller than it really is.sunrays spread sideways through the clouds.perspective view.fish eye lens.our concave view of the world.
they have broken the bible down into a logicle message using just the names in the bible.atom and hydrogen bombs sent to the atmosphere between 1961-69.man went up in 1961 for a look then probably never went again.jfk died for some reason.and now the world believes a whole load of stuff.we only see 1 side of the moon the world over.hmmm.the north hem sees one image and the south hem the upside down image of the same.
oh.and antartica having the world sign a trraty so no-one goes there?oh and air bubbles coming out of astronauts helmets on more tha one occasion.astronauts wont swear on the bible.
-
im not gullable,I just observe.
Have you ever looked out of the window of an aeroplane? Or tried to navigate a ship or plane using a "flat earth" map? Or seen a pendulum?
-
it is easier to fool a person than convince them they were fooled.pendulum?I don't get it.
How do you navigate a ship using a map?compass in the old days and GPS now days with the most trecent map of the day.plus local and national flights don't need much work to it,but international flights in the southern hemisphere are bogus sometimes. have you ever navigated a ship as you asked if I had. they don't go North or South directly.
what would I see out of a window of an aeroplane?
I think colin said that the great people of many years ago proved the world was flat?they never had the ability of flight till 100 years ago or so.HHHMMMMM.they only worked out the circumference of the equator.why is antartica like 15 times larger than the artic.you have been fooled my friend!
So,convince me that the story of gravity of planets and orbiting and satellittes and all these amazing things aren't just away of Government(which means MIND CONTROL in latin) controlled world peace and order.Why would the UN flag be a model of the flat earth map?they could have designed it in a different way.
. I am beginning to wonder/challenge what we have all been taught for children.christmas aint a Christian thing.its the church making you believe what you have been told eg. It about order and if there was a world revolt because space wasn't what they thought, chaos my friend.
-
it is easier to fool a person than convince them they were fooled.pendulum?I don't get it.
Then you would do well to study some elementary physics and ask yourself how a pendulum works and how it could possibly keep the same time anywhere on a flat planet.
How do you navigate a ship using a map?compass in the old days and GPS now days with the most trecent map of the day.
You can't use GPS because that depends on the earth being spherical and umpteen satellites being in orbit around it, held there by gravitation.
plus local and national flights don't need much work to it,but international flights in the southern hemisphere are bogus sometimes.
The last time I went there, it was far from bogus. It was high summer here and mid winter there - not possible on a flat planet.
have you ever navigated a ship as you asked if I had. they don't go North or South directly.
Yes, and from time to time we did go directly north or south. Due largely to a chunk of France being south of a chunk of England.
what would I see out of a window of an aeroplane?
Nothing, obviously. "There are none so blind as those that will not see". But I see the curvature of the earth 'cos otherwise I'd get lost or crash and lose my licence. Perhaps you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the godless Civil Aviation Authority challenges Papal wisdom by insisting that all aircraft windscreens are curved, but pilots who fly under Muslim and Hindu regulatory authorities seem to use the same maps.
I think colin said that the great people of many years ago proved the world was flat?they never had the ability of flight till 100 years ago or so.HHHMMMMM.they only worked out the circumference of the equator.
Hde actually said exactly the opposite.
why is antartica like 15 times larger than the artic.you have been fooled my friend!
No, it's infinitely bigger. You try to work out why.
-
it is easier to fool a person than convince them they were fooled.pendulum?I don't get it.
Then you would do well to study some elementary physics and ask yourself how a pendulum works and how it could possibly keep the same time anywhere on a flat planet.
what?
How do you navigate a ship using a map?compass in the old days and GPS now days with the most trecent map of the day.
You can't use GPS because that depends on the earth being spherical and umpteen satellites being in orbit around it, held there by gravitation.
Three points on the flat disk will triangulate your position. You can lose a radio signal in a tunnel just like gps.
plus local and national flights don't need much work to it,but international flights in the southern hemisphere are bogus sometimes.
The last time I went there, it was far from bogus. It was high summer here and mid winter there - not possible on a flat planet.
Where did you go and from where?
have you ever navigated a ship as you asked if I had. they don't go North or South directly.
Yes, and from time to time we did go directly north or south. Due largely to a chunk of France being south of a chunk of England.
well its not a great distance and doesn't mean much. ship swill not sail long distances directly north or south
what would I see out of a window of an aeroplane?
Nothing, obviously. "There are none so blind as those that will not see". But I see the curvature of the earth 'cos otherwise I'd get lost or crash and lose my licence. Perhaps you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the godless Civil Aviation Authority challenges Papal wisdom by insisting that all aircraft windscreens are curved, but pilots who fly under Muslim and Hindu regulatory authorities seem to use the same maps.
who said about curved windows?why is it when you look into a spoon one way ur facing up,and the other ur upside down.Perspective and perception and the human fish eye lens effect. A bird would not see what you see holmes.
I think colin said that the great people of many years ago proved the world was flat?they never had the ability of flight till 100 years ago or so.HHHMMMMM.they only worked out the circumference of the equator.
Hde actually said exactly the opposite.
That's what I meant.they proved the world was round somehow.
why is antartica like 15 times larger than the artic.you have been fooled my friend!
No, it's infinitely bigger. You try to work out why.
because its surrounding us maybe and the world has made it no mans land maybe?
-
HIGHER EDUCATION. There are many dumber, but if they teach you that ur dumber, that's HIGHER EDUCATION!
-
Where did you go and from where?
Australia and New Zealand, from England. If the world is flat, why couldn't I see the Pole Star from the Antipodes? And why can't I see the Southern Cross from England?
And I'll give you the answer about Antarctica. It's infinitely bigger than the Arctic because there is no land at the north pole.
-
Where did you go and from where?
Australia and New Zealand, from England. If the world is flat, why couldn't I see the Pole Star from the Antipodes? And why can't I see the Southern Cross from England?
And I'll give you the answer about Antarctica. It's infinitely bigger than the Arctic because there is no land at the north pole.
your not a map maker-of which they all admit nothing on the globe map scale is exact or perfect.and my research says antartica is 18000km cir and artic is 16000km cir.HMMM
You cant see the southern cross because it is to far away like the sun dis/appearing everyday/night. Its just far away.You van see most northern constellations from the south pole.HMMM
If we are on a flat earth, my gravity theory would be correct then.1 side of the moon.1 evr pic of earth,oh the list goes on.jfk.
-
Get a grip on reality, mate!
If you define the arctic and antarctic by means of latitude, they are of course identical on a spherical planet, but vastly different on a flat one. And of course there is no unique south pole on a flat planet, so the probability of Scott finding Amundsen's flag was negligible - indeed zero if they set off from different camps and travelled "south".
If you define Antarctica as the solid continent above sea level, it is infinitely bigger because there is no such rock under the Arctic ice.
You van see most northern constellations from the south pole.HMMM
Please show us a verified photograph of Polaris taken from sea level, anywhere south of the equator. It's easy to identify. And perhaps you can tell me where to see the Southern Cross from Glasgow.
Better still, stop trolling nonsense and get a life.
-
If the earth were flat, what shape would the van arken belt be? And wouldn't a flat Earth need to have edges or be infinitely large?
-
If the earth were flat, what shape would the van arken belt be? And wouldn't a flat Earth need to have edges or be infinitely large?
van allen belt can be what ever shape.look it up for yourself about the boundaries and the circumference of flat earth.its quite a simple theory.the total circumference of earth on a flat scale is debatable.
how about if each degree of latitude is 110km.there are 90 degrees from pole to pole.thats 9900 km from south pole to north pole.9900 x 2 is 19800km.so the meridional circumference should be 19800km not 40008km.400008km is just based on the earths radius---C=diameter x pi.
-
Get a grip on reality, mate!
If you define the arctic and antarctic by means of latitude, they are of course identical on a spherical planet, but vastly different on a flat one. And of course there is no unique south pole on a flat planet, so the probability of Scott finding Amundsen's flag was negligible - indeed zero if they set off from different camps and travelled "south".
If you define Antarctica as the solid continent above sea level, it is infinitely bigger because there is no such rock under the Arctic ice.
You van see most northern constellations from the south pole.HMMM
Please show us a verified photograph of Polaris taken from sea level, anywhere south of the equator. It's easy to identify. And perhaps you can tell me where to see the Southern Cross from Glasgow.
Better still, stop trolling nonsense and get a life.
why don't you answer those questions for yourself as I have.polaris is just below the horizon anywhere south of the equator.The southern cross can be seen from 25 degrees north of the equator.depends on time of the evening and day of the year I would imagine.they can suggest that the sun doesn't rise or set,its just further away-the perspective view and vanishing point as we were all taught.so seeing something very far away on a flat land isn't going to rise above the horizon so that you can continue to see it.If you type your curious questions into google using the words flat earth-you will probably answer your question.
my definition of a troll is someone hassling with no intention to be educated.i want to be educated and don't intend to annoy-im south African lol.
-
If Polaris is "just below the horizon" that rather suggests that the earth is spherical. And as you go further south it is more and more "just below". Glasgow is 56 degrees north. Is the Southern Cross visible from Sauciehall Street?
how about if each degree of latitude is 110km.there are 90 degrees from pole to pole.
Not on my map - there are 180 degrees of latitude from pole to pole. Get a better map.
your not a map maker-of which they all admit nothing on the globe map scale is exact or perfect
If the earth were flat, you could map it exactly onto a flat sheet with no distortion at all. The fact that you can't, surely suggests that it isn't?
-
im south African lol.
Are you offering that as a reason or an excuse?
-
If Polaris is "just below the horizon" that rather suggests that the earth is spherical. And as you go further south it is more and more "just below". Glasgow is 56 degrees north. Is the Southern Cross visible from Sauciehall Street?
what number is your house and I will send you the answer.its most probable to far away to see,but its the at a different angle possibly-this can be explained through online videos using programs to project why the north and south spin in 2 different directions and the moon is upside down in the southern hemisphere.why is ur image upside down in one side of a spoon.thats what got me started in all off this.others can see what we cant.
how about if each degree of latitude is 110km.there are 90 degrees from pole to pole.
Not on my map - there are 180 degrees of latitude from pole to pole. Get a better map.
ye.i realised that after I wrote it.thank you for not ripping me apart for that stupid assumption.there are 180 degrees.my bad
your not a map maker-of which they all admit nothing on the globe map scale is exact or perfect
If the earth were flat, you could map it exactly onto a flat sheet with no distortion at all. The fact that you can't, surely suggests that it isn't?
look up flat earth in google under images.makes sense.many of our bulk land masses,ice or not are not to size.
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 british ship challenger recently completed the circuit of the southern region.3years later and 69000miles later.
apparently antartic coastline starts at 75 degrees and impenetratable.
flight connections all over the world follow the flat earth distances as they are the shortest by coincidence.i know you all think im nuts,but there are 100s of scientist who believe what I believe-and I am just an observer-not a conspiracy junkie.
-
im south African lol.
Are you offering that as a reason or an excuse?
things would have been different if the won the rugby eh.both maybe:-) [:-\]
-
flight connections all over the world follow the flat earth distances as they are the shortest by coincidence.
That is demonstrably false. For instance, look at these flight paths from the US to India. All of the paths appear curved on the flat map (so not the shortest option if it actually was flat).
http://www.mumbai.me/New-York/images/Manchester-New-York-flight-path.gif
http://travelisfree.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Screen-shot-2014-01-27-at-10.44.48-PM.png
In fact this makes sense if you look at it as a spherical globe and fly like this:
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Air-India-USA-Destinations.gif
-
flight connections all over the world follow the flat earth distances as they are the shortest by coincidence.
That is demonstrably false. For instance, look at these flight paths from the US to India. All of the paths appear curved on the flat map (so not the shortest option if it actually was flat).
http://www.mumbai.me/New-York/images/Manchester-New-York-flight-path.gif
http://travelisfree.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Screen-shot-2014-01-27-at-10.44.48-PM.png
In fact this makes sense if you look at it as a spherical globe and fly like this:
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Air-India-USA-Destinations.gif
My appologies.I write bfore I think. I meant southern hemisphere/below the equator
-
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)
-
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 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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
.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.
-
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.
-
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 [;)]
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F&hash=3cd4f4119996b42d10f5ed9eb0e8d712)
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
No, just bollocks. Reflecting lenses, indeed!
-
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?
-
.... 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.
-
.... 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
-
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.
-
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.
-
.. 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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.