Don’t be lazy!
It’s your (tangential/unrelated to our discussion) question and i’ve already suggested an app you can (most likely) use to get your answer easily. There are of course many charts of such things available as well.
Why should i do your homework to answer your question that isn’t even about what we are discussing?
Of course there are! Astronomy has been practiced for millennia, and used for charting navigation for almost as long. It is well known how far one must travel to obscure and restore a particular star / constellation.
There are also modeling applications - likely sellarium can do this, for instance - which can also be used to lookup such things. They just don’t have anything to do with your original question or my answer to it.
No, any fundamental 'discovery' that goes against the status quo
Lol, i disagree - but in any case; what “discovery that goes against the status quo” did you think we were discussing? What i said is well known and established. It’s most all “status quo” - not that that matters.
published in scientific journals
Again, science is about replication not the publisher racket. Are you familiar with the “crisis” in replication facing those “journals”? More than half of what is published across the board is garbage/junk/fraud. Although you are right that there ought to be a working system to foster and validate scientific claims - the publishing racket demonstrably isn’t that. Lots, if not most, things that “ought” to be, sadly are not.
The Theory of Everything, where Hawkings was laughed at, scoffed at, and told he was a loon, by the establishment.
As i said, i like historical fiction too - but it is important to remember it is just stories.
you are just a conspiracy theorist
Lol, imagine being on a forum called “conspiracies” and unironically saying something like this...
“Conspiracy theorist” is a meaningless derogatory designed (and procedurally used) only to discredit and slander. You would do well to refrain from using/perpetuating the tools of our common enemies.
Anyone can lay a claim that Jews control everything and that there is a secret cabal trying to hide the truth, well my friend, that is the true meaning of a conspiritard.
This “conversation” has sure taken a strange turn... What an odd non sequitur...
So put up or shut up
Completely agreed, and a great motto! I’m absolutely “putting up”. That’s what i am doing every time i share my views, research, and conclusions. That is regardless of the venue, which is irrelevant. You can, and evidently more than half do - routinely, “put up” nonsense in “reputable journals”. Publishing doesn’t matter, validation does!
that is the language of a coward
If you say so. I understand academia, and the parasitic profiteering publishing racket attached to its belly, far too well to fear it.
If you are so much smarter than they are
Lol, you misunderstand. The smartest people who ever lived were all wrong. It will be forever thus. Smart does not equal correct.
I am claiming that the commonly taught belief that the “curve of the earth” obscures distant objects/lights is incorrect. I am not claiming anything about my intelligence nor anyone else's.
Every flat earther is a fucking idiot
There aren’t really any flat earthers. That’s a heavily advertised (i.e. funded) psyop. They are advertised as idiots intentionally to drive legitimate interest and research away from a valuable subject.
To date, not one of you FE's has ever done anything more than make fake assumptions without any evidence whatsoever.
In general, i agree with you - however there are many earnest flat earth researchers which conduct legitimate - evidence based - research. The psyop is designed to obfuscate them.
Also, “evidence” is not the “slam dunk” it is often misrepresented as. There is evidence available for most anything, very much including things which are incorrect. Legitimate evidence is used to convict innocent people all the time. Legitimate scientific/empirical evidence is historically always used to draw incorrect conclusions and theories which are then taught institutionally to millions.
What content?
They’re called words.
You throw down some words that explain nothing
Lol. That’s not for lack of trying! When you don’t understand something, the best first step is to ask questions! Instead you resorted to ad hominem, which is not a good/intelligent way to discuss, learn, or teach anything :(
I too can string some fancy sounding words together randomly,
Clearly you didn’t understand what i said. Ask questions!
Name the distances.
As i said, there are many charts of such things. Look them up if you are interested! They have nothing to do with the question you asked, or the answer i gave.
Publish your research
I “published” the conclusions of my research to you - just now...
Besides, what i’ve said is demonstrably observable for all to see. What better “publishment” can there be but trivially observable reality?
All objects, and the light from them - wether reflected or self luminescent - do as i describe when receding.
show your empirical evidence and then have it reviewed by your peers
Again, there is no better empirical evidence than trivially observable reality. Go out and “review” my evidence for yourself. Science is about replication (validation), not the publishing racket.
Once you do, you will be proven right and become the most famous person in the world.
Lol. You massively overestimate peoples interest in such things. Virtually no one cares friend, because they are too busy slaving away to “earn” a crust.
Think of all the brave innovators who challenged the church and old-school ways that came before you
I like historical fiction as well, but it is important to remember that they are just stories.
so everyone can once and for know how they have all been manipulated.
No one requires to be “manipulated” in order to be wrong and to likewise be taught, from childhood, wrong things and repeat them. That happens naturally, without any intervention/manipulation.
What are you waiting for?
That is a good question to ask yourself. I am not waiting. I’m here sharing my views and conclusions. You are the one who won’t/can’t bother to validate them. As I said, most people don’t care about such things :(
The light from stars travels billions of light years
I don’t believe such things, but even if it were true - it wouldn’t change what i said or the demonstrable reality of it. No matter how far away the light source is - as you recede from it (or it from you) it will appear to converge with the horizon and eventually no longer be visible.
only to be blocked
You misunderstand, that is your view. You are the one who believes that the light is blocked by the “curve of the earth”.
In my view, the receding light is first apparently converged with the visible horizon (perspective / angular resolution), and ultimately refracted, convexly towards the surface, by the density gradient in our air.
Makes total sense.
It does when you understand it. However, making sense doesn’t make it (or anything) correct. Reality is stranger than fiction because fiction is obliged to possibility.
Flat Earthers are unable to actually substantiate their idiotic fantasies
There aren’t really any “flat earthers”. There are just products and/or agents of the heavily advertised (i.e. funded) flat earth psyop.
As for “idiotic fantasies”, all i did was answer your question - plainly. I know you are more comfortable believing there is no available answer but the one you were trained to repeat - but this is essentially never the case.
Try to address the content of my statements, instead of resorting to vapid and self degrading ad hominem. Viciously attack the thought, if you are capable, but never the thinker - as the latter only demonstrates your incompetence to do the former.
I don't think that you actually understand any of the words you use there
Lol.
but please show me the calculations and distances involved.
Calculations are what we contrive AFTER we measure first. If you want to calculate, make some measurements of the same star in the same position (multiple nights, obviously) from different known distances/locations to it and extrapolate from there. You will see that it does exactly as i said; as you recede the star will lower in azimuth until it converges with the horizon and you can’t see it anymore. Do you honestly doubt that?
How far away from the constellation of Orion am I on the Northern Hemisphere and how far on the Southern and what exactly is the cut-off distance beyond which it isn't visible anymore?
I’m sure those answers are available to you if you want to go find them. It’s pretty standard astronomy stuff - go look it up if you’re interested! It doesn’t have much to do with what you asked though - that will just tell you how far you’ll have to travel to “restore” the stars you can’t see anymore.
I am talking about why you can’t see them anymore (they’re too far away), which is a different matter than how far you need to travel to restore them.
Pretty good article, surprisingly.
Can hollow earth and flat earth even co exist?
Of course, why not?
How can earth be hollow if its just a flat square.
It just has to have large hollow spaces beneath the surface (which it obviously does, in any case), the shape of the entire world is irrelevant to that. Even if the world is a flat square, it obviously isn’t 2 dimensional!
Basic physics here people.
Most people struggle with physics. It isn’t for everyone.
I thought this shit would be common knowledge
Lots of shit is taught as “common knowledge”. Historically (and contemporarily) speaking, “common knowledge” is always wrong and at best incomplete. Thank god truth is not a democracy, eh?
In the original legends of Hercules, he uses a compass to navigate the seas.
Interesting - never heard that before!
The equations that the greeks came up with could work both ways.
The equations that eratosthenes apocryphally used to calculate the circumference of the world assume and depend on the world being spherical (and many other unvalidated assumptions). Misrepresenting it as a “proof” for the shape of the earth is at best disingenuous/erroneous and at worst fraudulent. Eratosthenes never doubted the world was spherical (and hence, of course, never sought to verify/validate it), because he was taught it as fact from childhood just like we were.
Anaxagoras is said to be the first person to explain that solar eclipses are caused by the Moon passing in front of the Sun
Also interesting. Pythagoras usually gets the credit for the explanation of the lunar eclipse, and from it the further deduction that the world is spherical - maybe anaxagoras is the real source.
Sure. (though “flat earthers” don’t really exist)
The reason you can’t see (all of) the stars from where you normally live is because you are too far away from them.
As you recede farther and farther from any object/light source, it approaches, then converges, and then is (ostensibly) obscured by/“behind/over” the apparent horizon.
The reasons this happens are due to perspective, and due to refraction caused by the density gradient in our air which tends to cause light which travels through it to curve convexly towards the ground.
How long could something such as this actually last before everyone perishes?
Unknown. The times we have actually tried to do it, it failed within years.
However - miniature sealed glass biomes can and have lasted on the order of centuries. Those rely on the sun however, and a different sort of biome would be required to live in darkness - but there are certainly plenty of living things which thrive in such environments. It’s all about the balance and symbiosis of them.
If you knew that the earth itself is a closed system, would you suspect that it could be done on a smaller scale too? This is generally my view.
if you'd go towards the middle of the earth, you'd have more gravity
Are you sure? Why wouldn’t the mass surrounding you now pull you outwards towards it? To phrase it another way; Why wouldn’t the ground above you pull you upwards towards it while the ground beneath you attracted you downwards lesser than it did at the surface (because there is now less matter beneath you to attract you)? Because the mass of the world doesn’t change (much anyhow), wouldn’t that mean that the gravitational pull would be the same no matter where on or in earth you were - just the distribution/direction of that force would change? If you could reach the center, would you feel no gravitation and be weightless because the mass of the world were roughly equal in all directions? Or would you be torn apart?
These are all “thought experiments” demonstrating fundamental flaws in the concept of gravitation. No one knows the answer to them.
but what are you saying here
I am saying that gravitation is fiction. Your weight doesn’t change unless you lose or gain weight/matter (by eating). Digging a hole, no matter how deep, or rocketing into the sky won’t change it at all.
Thanks for admitting that.
I stated it clearly in the very first comment to you in this thread.
Can you explain why that is the case?
Because it hasn’t been built, and there is no real need to build one. As i said, models are tools for specific use. What would the use of such a model be?
Besides, models of the entire world take centuries if not millennia to compile (and that is WITH phenomenal funding and vast numbers of people working on it). Expecting one to exist when you snap your fingers is crazy.
There have been maps before Google Earth, did you know that?
Of course! Did you know maps are not scientific models (they are maps)? :)
Thanks again for proving the point of my thread.
Your intended point of this thread is to waste your own time. It’s “how to keep an idiot busy”. You are asking for something that doesn’t exist, knowing that it doesn’t exist, and then patting yourself on the back. You could have done that in an empty room offline.
Unbeknownst to you when you “asked” your rhetorical question, the real point is that having a model or not having a model is meaningless. As i said before, and you ignored - we have several geocentric models of the world being the center of the universe. They exist, they work, and we have them. Does that prove that the world is the center of the universe?
If i surprised you and provided you with a comprehensive model of a flat world (which is trivial to create - it just takes a long time, typically centuries, to do) - would that prove the world was flat? The answer to all the above questions is no, and you ought to understand why.
Ask someone who accepts a globe earth to show a map or model and they will be happy to do it.
If the world is flat, all maps are flat earth maps. In fact, the vast majority of maps depict the world as flat. There are many available “flat earth” maps.
As for a model, it is true there is no scientific flat earth model - but i am pretty certain that if i asked you (and certainly most all who “accept a globe earth”) for a scientific model of it - you would fail to provide it. You would mistake google earth, or a toy globe for a scientific model :(
Ask the same of a flat earther and they wriggle and deflect and try to get into philosophical discussions but they simply won't tell you who the Flat Earth looks like because they know that any map or model that is out there is bullshit.
There are no “flat earthers” in the way you mean. You were “asking” products and/or agents of a psyop.
I’m not a flat earther, but i neither wriggled nor deflected your questions. There are plenty of maps available but none of them are flawless; this doesn’t vary wether the mapmaker conceives the world to be spherical or flat. Perfect maps don’t exist, and don’t need to - they are merely tools for getting us where we are intending to go.
I don’t care much for cartography.
Maps, much like models - and for the same reasons, are tools for specific use (typically, travel). As long as a map is useful, it continues to be used.
We don’t study maps to measure what shape anything is. It is a common, and encouraged, mistake to confuse/conflate topography with topology. They are separate and distinct.
There are many AE maps that are useful enough for our travel purposes, but this is different than representative of / accurate for the entire world. There are no flawless maps, and this doesn’t vary with the conception of the shape of the world.
I created it for earnest researchers to ask questions/share answers, discuss, and exchange views as well as approaches.
Please feel free to share your views, questions, criticisms, resources etc!
Interesting... Can you please try it again? The url works for me, and it should work for you too.
If it doesn’t, please let me know what site you are using (scored.co or communities.win) and the browser you are using (also wether it is desktop or mobile) and i will submit the issue to the site admins (or you can) over on meta - as well as give you the full link.
no, it’s not a website - it’s a community here on this site.
Thank you for proving my point.
As i said, that isn’t a “point”. Asking for something that doesn’t exist and “predicting” no one will be able to give it to you is a fool’s errand.
Having a model or not having a model is meaningless. That is the “point” you are entirely missing. We don’t study models to understand anything about reality, we study reality and then build models for specific limited purpose. All models are wrong, but some are useful for a limited time.
That is a nonsensical statement
Only because you have been encouraged to misunderstand what a model is and what it is for. Having a model that the earth is the center of the universe (geocentric model) - of which several currently exist - does not make it so. Do you understand what i’m saying? If not, please speak up / ask questions!
A model can be an accurate representation of reality
Possibly, but that is not their purpose. Models are built for specific use, but “accurate representation of reality” is not one of them. They are inherently built of a small (and flawed) subset of the data that comprises reality, which means they are always wrong and at absolute best incomplete. It’s godel’s proof by other verbiage.
We don’t study models to understand reality. We study reality to understand reality.
Why are you unable to show a representation of a flat Earth?
There are plenty of representations of a flat earth. Look up AE maps, and the gleason map. There are no maps without flaws, however - for the same reasons there are no models which are flawless either.
The point is that having a representation or not is irrelevant. The world is whatever shape it is despite what your conceptions, maps, models describe it as. Conceptions, maps, and models constantly change and are discarded/changed each generation as they stop serving their function and need to be. Through all of that, reality remains the same - and doesn’t care what we think or how we depict it.
Having a model, or not having a model, has no impact on reality.
A model of the flat Earth. It's literally there in the thread title.
I know it is hard to hold multiple conversations simultaneously so i forgive you for forgetting who you are talking to and what we’ve already spoken about.
I already told you very clearly that, in regards to “model” in a scientific sense of the word, there is no such thing.
However, models aren’t used to determine reality - so not having one or having one is meaningless.
As predicted, none of the flat Earthers is able to show one.
“Flat earthers” don’t really exist in the way they have been presented to you. They are agents and/or products of a heavily advertised (i.e. funded) psyop.
In any case, asking someone for something that doesn’t exist and “predicting” they won’t be able to give it to you is pretty silly.
If you truly want to learn more about earnest flat earth research (as opposed to the psyop you seem to have some experience with), and why people who study it conclude ostensibly wild things (like that the world is not spherical the way we are taught) - please join us on flatearthresearch to exchange views!
1st of all, how many of those things do you think is looking for the edge? Is it certainly none?
Secondly, who says there is an edge to find - or even if there is, that it can be reached? Many people believe the universe does not have an edge...
That’s why it’s named TallestShil
There you go again, talking to yourself.
Once again, if you want to talk to yourself - there is no reason to post.
Let me know if your programmer ever fixes you and you can link to even one of my posts - let alone one which contains what you frequently lie about.
Until then remain silent.
There are some who claim this is the case. But actually the distance to them doesn’t matter. Perspective (which causes the “vanishing point” phenomenon which is the “reason” things that recede apparently converge with the horizon) is more to do with angular resolution / receptor density in our eyes. It doesn’t matter how far away it is - as long as we can see it.
Assumptions built on assumptions. Castles made of sand.
What if the earth does NOT move over that 6 month interval - and the difference in apparent position (used for stellar parallax) is then NOT caused by this believed (but utterly unempirical ie. unmeasured ie, unscientific) motion?
Evidence abounds, it is often the interpretation of that evidence which leads to incorrect conclusions.
We can see that the star’s apparent position moves slightly over a yearly interval. That is very different than all the (unvalidated) assumptions built beyond that evidence that you preach as gospel (because astronomers preached it to you as gospel first).
This is a common misunderstanding. It is analogous to the common “why can’t i see the eifel tower from the top of everest then?” nonsense.
There is more than one reason. One is perspective/angular resolution (causing apparent convergence with the horizon and vanishing because the object is too small to be resolved), and the other is there is a lot of stuff in the way (most notably air and the things dissolved/commingling in it) which as i said - tends to cause light to curve convexly towards the surface.
Anyone can say anything, dip-shit status not withstanding. But that doesn’t make them correct/incorrect. You claiming (parroting the claim, in point of fact) that the stars are unfathomable distances from us is a good example. In any case, i didn’t make any claim like that, so why don’t we talk about claims i actually made instead?
And i told you that i am, right now, to you. Look at your reaction to this publishing! Witness your belligerent disinterest and zealous faith in your own preferred “status quo”. I may “publish” something in some form in the future, but there is nothing wrong with starting small. One of the major reasons i engage in forums like this is to share (“publish”) my research to subject it to scrutiny in the hopes of refinement (including refutation!).
Lol, yes - so we are taught and required to repeat. It is not insane to conclude that what you have been conditioned to believe through rote under the guise of education from childhood is likely incorrect. Quite the opposite!
If gravity (gravitation specifically; gravity is a phenomenon and has been defined for thousands of years - it is demonstrably real) doesn’t exist, then it can’t force any bodies - celestial or otherwise - to take any shape.
Ad hominem is the last resort of the intellectually feeble. They attack the thinker out of desperation because they can’t attack the thought. Do better if you can!