Does the Sun Revolve Around the Earth, or does the Earth Revolve Around the Sun?

a reply to: spygeek

The contradictions I outlined many times. You're persistent . I'll give You that.attentive not so much.

Anyway the major glaring example in any of the math is for the curvature of the earth. it does not agree with what I can see and confirm daily. I fly almost weekly across country and I'm yet to see this supposed curvature. while flying... when the math says I should see it and I don't this implies the math is wrong. If don't believe. book a flight. get a camera with out a fisheye lens. look at the picture. it will show a flat horizon regardless of flight direction. if You want a cheaper alternative go view YouTube videos that show the same thing from weather balloons equipped with non-fisheye lenses at even higher altitudes.

SO if math of the most basic equation to finding the earth curve doesn't line up with what I can actually really truthfully confirm here on earth this implies that the theory as a whole is flawed and can not be scientific fact.

originally posted by: SynchronousSnake
a reply to: spygeek

The contradictions I outlined many times. You're persistent . I'll give You that.attentive not so much.

Anyway the major glaring example in any of the math is for the curvature of the earth. it does not agree with what I can see and confirm daily. I fly almost weekly across country and I'm yet to see this supposed curvature. while flying... when the math says I should see it and I don't this implies the math is wrong. If don't believe. book a flight. get a camera with out a fisheye lens. look at the picture. it will show a flat horizon regardless of flight direction. if You want a cheaper alternative go view YouTube videos that show the same thing from weather balloons equipped with non-fisheye lenses at even higher altitudes.

SO if math of the most basic equation to finding the earth curve doesn't line up with what I can actually really truthfully confirm here on earth this implies that the theory as a whole is flawed and can not be scientific fact.

Your argument is that you can't see the curvature of the earth when flying in a plane cross country? You should be able to detect it from an aeroplane at a cruising height of around 10,600 metres (35,000 feet), but you need a fairly wide field of view (ie 60 degrees) and a virtually cloud-free horizon. The reality is that clouds, hills and mountains mean you might rarely get to see the kind of perfectly clear horizon where the curve would be most obvious..

I can clearly see the curvature of the earth while standing on the ground, no aeroplane necessary.. Using a pair of binoculars, standing on the beach, looking at distant ships on the horizon, I can see that their hulls start to disappear before their masts and other superstructure. Ancient Greek scientists, who spotted this without any optical aids, used this very same evidence to conclude that the Earth was round...

This footage was recorded by a camera attached to a weather balloon, without a fisheye lens. The curvature is clearly visible:


This video was recorded by one of the many cameras on the international space sation. The camera is clearly not fitted with a fisheye lens. The curvature is again clearly visible:


The earth has been measured to curve by an amount of approximately 8 inches per mile. This is easily verifiable. Why not get a friend and try this experiment?:

1) Go to a place where you can easily view the sunset or sunrise over the ocean. Be sure to check local weather reports to know the time of day to expect the sunrise or set.

2)If viewing a sunset, make your first measurement lying down on the ground and your second measurement while standing. If viewing a sunrise, do the opposite. From now on I will explain only the directions for the sunset, please make the necessary adjustments for the sunrise experiment.

3) Before the sunset, get a friend to measure the height of your eyes while you are lying down and still able to see the horizon where you expect the sunset.

4) Prepare a stopwatch to begin counting.

5) Wait for the sunset.

6) When the last bit of sun has disappeared, start the stop watch and quickly get up and stand in a position that is directly above where your eyes were when you were laying down.

7) You should be able to see the Sun set again.

8) Stop the stopwatch when you see the last bit of sun disappear again.

9)Have your friend measure the height to your eyes in the standing position.

You can now calculate the circumference of the Earth using the following two equations:

Distance to the horizon
D = sqrt (2 x radius of the earth x height of your eyes)

[sqrt(2Rh1) - sqrt(2Rh2)] / 2pi x R =s/S
Where R = The radius of the Earth
h1 and h2= the height of your eyes during the two measurements (h1 should be the bigger of the two heights)
s=the number of seconds between sun sets
S=the number of seconds in one day, which is equal to 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours = 84,600 seconds.

This equation is a proportion that assumes the Earth rotates once in 24 hours so that the difference between the distances to the horizon over the whole circumference of the Earth is equal to the ratio of the time between your measurements and a whole day.

For example, if you measured 6 seconds in between the sunset when you were laying down with your eyes at a height of 10 cm off of the ground and the sunset when you were standing up at a height of 2m, then you would have to solve the two above equations for the radius of the Earth in terms of h1 and h2 (which are .10 m and 2 m) and the number of seconds in between sunsets:
[[86400 x sqrt(2) x (sqrt(h1) - sqrt(h2))^2]/[6sec x 2pi]]^2 = Radius of the Earth.

We actually performed this experiment while on camp back in high school, it has a lot of room for human error, however the fact you can witness a sunrise or sunset twice in rapid succession simply by standing up or sitting down quickly, is itself evidence of the curvature alone.

Nothing you have mentioned contradicts what can be expected, nor "implies the math is wrong". If you actually did some math, you might agree with me.

a reply to: SynchronousSnake

funny part is, is that I did Astronomy at Uni and part of it was a history of astronomy module. It was very important and interesting to go back and figure out what different people and cultures thought happened in the universe, and what they knew about it or thought they knew.

One of the most elegant reasonings about some of these theories is made from basic observations, observing the planets move with relation to the background stars is something that was done long ago. When people thought about Earth centric models (not even flat earth models) it became very clear that planets should not go backwards in the night sky, unless the models invoked planets that had epicycles, in that they orbited around an invisible point, along with the Earth doing this also.

What you end up with is a horribly complicated model that doesn't look elegant is highly tuned with none fixed parameters in order to make things work. While the simplest model isn't always the right one. Just a basic look at what you have to do to get the most simple observations to work based on data you can conceivably collect using less than $200 of equipment, and you see you are presented with
A) A huge and horrible model of numerology with about 2-3 parameters per planet
B) A very simple model with 1 parameter per planet.

As for flat Earth, there are so many observations which just dont support it. To say that "All models have problems so i support none" is just a obtuse way of saying nothing but wanting attention all the same. The models predict quite different outcomes and we have a wealth of observational evidence, some which again can be obtained with less than $200 investment should you wish too, and yet people deny it not because it isn't convincing, but because they simply refuse to actually alter their world view.

The universe doesn't care if people think the world is flat, and as for a controlled data conspiracy... I am not sure that any men in black went and altered the data taken when a balloon was sent up with a.... marital aid strapped to it along with a camera... not only showing the curvature of the Earth, but also a proud plastic phallus.

a reply to: SynchronousSnake

You might want to read a bit about optics... seriously... seriously... iss is very close... it is only about 70m across though. The opening angle it makes is about

It orbits at about 400km its viewing arc is thus about 0.01 degrees, it isn't a solid object however and most of the structure is closer to being about 10 meters. Making seeing it closer to a 0.001 degree object.

Saturn works out at being about 0.005 max and 0.004 (this is the disk ONLY) with the rings being about 2.5x more

There are also other issues with photography and the ISS being that it moves rather rapidly across the sky, tracking it isn't something most peoples telescopes are set up to do, meaning the image you take has to be rapid, the ISS while being reflective, ISNT illuminated all that well at night... only in the evening, the evening sky typically is quite turbulant too making 'seeing worse'

Saturn through a 900mm telescope (available off the shelf for about $150) is visible as a very small fuzzy blob, you can see the rings and barely if you are quite quite persistent, observe the biggest gap) observing the ISS with such a telescope is... quite frankly... difficult given that even the rotation of the Earth means that saturn itself will track across the frame in about 1 minute. (I know because i have done exactly this)

The ISS will zip by the frame in about a second.

So please understand also that a high power telescope with adaptive optics, is not the same as the fuzzy telescope most people attempt this with...

Want to do a fair comparison?

THIS shot should be an education for you
steeljawscribe.com...

It is taken with a 12,000mm telescope combined with adaptive optics... not bad right?

or this maybe
blogs.discovermagazine.com...

the object you are looking at, from end to end, can fit about 4 times across the disk of saturn. Soooo now do you understand how we can count rings? It doesn't make anyones head explode or cause confusion to people who actually know about the technology involved

originally posted by: ErosA433
THIS shot should be an education for you
steeljawscribe.com...

It is taken with a 12,000mm telescope combined with adaptive optics... not bad right?

Phill Plaitt is praising the imagery in your other link which I agree is pretty good but it doesn't compare to the Dantowitz image, it's a real jaw-dropper. Thanks for posting it; I've never seen that image before. It's worth displaying, though ATS won't permit it to be displayed full size:

a reply to: Arbitrageur
When i read the 'only fuzzy tiny images' I instantly thought, no that cannot be right, since I know how powerful adaptive optics can be in demonstration. When I saw that image i too was blown away. Just outright cool and a great display of the technology.


For others who still might not really get my long explanation... here it is in summary.

We should always compare apples to apples. What happens far too much with people is confirmation bias.
What appears to be the case is this
1) I see a shot of saturn taken with $10 million worth of optics, looks amazing
2) I see a shot of something which is closer, with $500 worth of optics, unimpressed

statement A) I come to the conclusion that 1 and 2 are equivalent and i thus draw a conclusion that either picture 1 is fake, or that picture 2 shows we don't really have a space station.

both conclusions drawn out of pure ignorance of actual real technology but instead just sitting on a belief system that says, unless I physically did something and understand how it works, then no one can possibly do it or understand it.

originally posted by: SynchronousSnake
No it is You that is cheery picking here.

Nope, I answered your question and you refuse to answer mine because you decide which facts are real, and any inconvenient fact you decide is wrong.

So let's go back to logic.

Explain time zones in a flat earth.

a reply to: ErosA433

Any image that shows what he says is not shown he will simply declare holographic or photoshopped.

How do you explain the anomalies where curvature should exist in an observation but doesn't?

a reply to: OmegaSynthesis

What anomalies and who is that directed towards? The very fact when curvature is not detected is an anomaly would indicate there is curvature.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That doesn't even make sense.
For example, seeing something a few hundred miles away, but it should be below the horizon..that sort of thing.

originally posted by: OmegaSynthesis
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That doesn't even make sense.
For example, seeing something a few hundred miles away, but it should be below the horizon..that sort of thing.

Show examples. The only way that is possible is by a mirage effect.

Time zones irrefutably disproves flat earth theory.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
But, flashlight!

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Irrefutably?In Your mind maybe since You don't seem to need proof of anything to make up Your mind.

Time zones are not a device to be used to take measure of any thing accurate and especially not suitable for determining the shape of the planet as evidenced of them following state/provincial lines as to not inconvenience half a locations residents . even if one location occupies roughly the same geographical position as a different time zone. For instance if we take a look at the east coast of Canada You will see three time zones that converge upon three provinces where this liberty has been taken to it's extreme. Newfoundland has it's own special time zone,whilst Labradors time zone as can be seen cuts right into the same time zone as Quebec with reckless abandon and no regard for that geographic position...

Link to time zone map

SO by now I hope You see how timezones have no bearing in this topic. this shows if Time zones followed dictation by where the sun was located overhead on a globe or map or whatever it will follow where the sun is not if it inconvenienced it's residents...Time zones follow the dictation of man. not the sun or earth.

Now OccamsRazor04, since I gave a clear and concise evidence how time zones could not possibly refute "flat" earth/ I think You owe to all of Us in simple logical terms to how it would possibly even prove a globe model? I think You need to work on Your definitions of the following words and or procedures : irrefutable, fact,theory, the scientific method,and lastly evidence.

Next since I've followed through on My end and proved Your logical fallacy of using time zones I think You owe it to the inquiring minds to explain theIllogical wave shaped "flight" pattern Your real honest to goodness space station,The ISS takes over the globe model but when applied to the flat earth map it would show a much more logical circular flight path.

Cheers
A real skeptic

The 18-25% of people who believe the Sun revolves around the Earth are morons or religious crackpots not willing to accept the SCIENCE and just plain observations that shows otherwise.

Even most religions have now accepted that the Church was wrong in this matter and that Galileo and several astronomers that came before him and suggested the same results were right.

a reply to: SynchronousSnake
I can't wait to see this "more logical circular flight path" on a flat Earth 'map'. You think you can do that? The real path ?