Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't)

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby fubarfuthark on February 28th, 2016, 6:23 pm

In reply to ICFreely's general 'bedford level' musings, I have tried to examine this question quite considerably myself and have landed at a kind of temporary and unsatisfactory notion that, at the level of attempting to extrapolate anything you can sensorily perceive to an actual conclusion (specifically re: the shape of the earth) one is quite literally chasing rainbows.

It is as if, as soon as we go beyond our mere sense experience and a certain delimited use of our reason we fly too close to the sun or the rainbow moves further away. I have often wondered if a kind of strange cabalistic 'radical perspectivism' in the theory of relativity/quantum wave/particle duality, whilst total balderdash in one sense (i.e. a real and object one of evidence based science) actually conceals a paradoxical kind of common sense, perhaps as embodied by the Icarus myth or, as it were, the rainbow representing 'gods covenant with man'. So Icarus flies up in the air to inspect the shape of the earth, but in doing so the wax of his wings come unstuck and he ends up with crappy CGI NASA ball earth pictures. This could be applied to the common sense idea of scientific instruments altering the conditions of an experiment. Or indeed the unreliability of the counterparty in carrying out the Bedford Level Experiment, or indeed, the intrinsically sphere-biased nature of human vision. It is as if transcendental knowledge of the world is sort of forbidden to man in a purely material sense and, in the end, we are left with little more than a kind of 'as above so below' situation, back to looking at the stars and wondering not thinking we 'actually' know.

It is as if Einstein remains a fraud whilst containing a germ of wisdom, if one sort of reads it backwards.

(there is a lot of stuff like that, one can learn a lot of the world by reading things like Adorno and Stanley Fish whilst bearing the maxim 'the devil speaks with a forked tongue' in mind, the forked tongue being the ability to say play both sides of dialectic on the one hand and say something whilst intending the opposite on the other)

I was turning the post you made in the Einstein thread around in my head, specifically the link to the rabbinical teaching concerning the planets going round the earth. And the following thing occurred to me:

Broadly speaking, from what i have read, kabbalism promotes a kind of radical perspectivism, a kind of as above, so below cosmology with the individual human as model of the cosmos and also the other way round, but that the individual is limited in his perception and that reality, in an objective sense, does not actually meaningfully exist. When applied to social sciences, or laboratory science this ends up promoting essentially occult truths disguised as empirical observations, and this pattern can be observed ALL OVER THE PLACE. What do derrida, einstein, durkheim and levi strauss have in common? The idea of the mental, social, physical, epistemological situation of the observer influencing what he is observing, there existing no transcendental thing, no 'the good', no 'the truth', all is just interpretation, structure, signs, constructs or indeed nothing at all. Perhaps the article you quoted ought to be interpreted not that the ancient sages reprimanded the pagan cosmologists for promoting heliocentricity over geocentricity but for promoting either of them at all as an actual transcendental truth beyond that which is revealed in the written and esoteric torah? How does this apply to the shape of the earth? Well, i am quite curious what kind of infallible method you would propose to use ascertain the situation regarding the buildings in manhattan that would not eventually break down due to human error, equipment limitations or some other problem, as you explained in your last post...

Hope you can excuse my jumping in and will not upbraid me for promoting anti-foundationalist ideas in a forum concerned with exposing media fakery. I think anything to do with radical perspectivism is pure poison is when applied to the realm of ethics and would, indeed lead to the kind of thinking that would allow a person (or group) to foist off fake science and fake pictures of the earth on the gullible...
fubarfuthark
Member
 
Posts: 60
Joined: February 15th, 2016, 1:20 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby simonshack on February 29th, 2016, 12:08 am

ICfreely wrote:Anyhow, good luck with your upcoming final "TYCHO/SSSS"!


Thanks. 'Good luck', however, is not quite what I'm hoping for - just a fair amount of reading time on the part of whoever will set aside a little part of their life to seriously assess my model - once I get it published online.

ICfreely wrote:I hope that you are willing to accept tough peer-reviews. Surrounding yourself with yes-men & ridiculing opposing points of view is unnecessary & counterproductive.


Oh, by all means - I'll welcome all peer-reviews that I can possibly get. I'd hate for my cosmic efforts to remain outright ignored (although I've grown kinda used to it, you know: it's not like my 9/11 or NASA research, for instance, are being picked up / debated /or much peer-reviewed by this world's scientific community...). Likewise, if my cosmic views ultimately remain ignored - rest assured that I won't make a fuss about it - nor will such an outcome (e.g. a deafening silence on the part of, say, the Royal Society) surprise me in any way... "To each their own beliefs" is and will remain my lifetime 'motto'. As I've learned in later years, trying to argue with someone awakened to the many lies pervading this world - yet incapable of rational / logical thought and discernment - is a complete waste of time.

'Yes-men', you say? Well, you yourself - mon ami - are living proof that I don't strive to surround myself with such folks. Heck, some are already throwing sarcasm at my cosmic research (think 'smj') before I've even had a chance to publish a single word of it - and run away in disgust of my seemingly irksome insolence of (I can only presume) 'having the unmitigated audacity' to tackle the subject! I must be the first ever cosmic theorist to have been pre-emptively 'burned at the stake' - even before releasing my fecking theory ! In medieval times, at least, critics waited until the 'heretic guy' actually SAID or WROTE something! :lol:

In fact, you are now on my (growing) shortlist of people who appear to be senselessly 'fretting' about my humble cosmic model - before even READING a single word about it. Pretty weird stuff, in my book. As for your assertion that "ridiculing opposing points of view are unnecessary & counterproductive" - well, I cannot agree more with you there, my dear IC.

ICfreely wrote:Going forward, I'll do my best to refrain from busting your balls/bursting your bubble.

Woah, that's really gracious of you, mate - and a most appreciated promise of yours (I truly do care about my balls). But see, by saying that you'll 'do your best to refrain from bursting my bubble', you sound awfully cocksure about your own (seemingly flat?) earthly / cosmic beliefs. Dogmatic much, IC? Oh no - wait a minute, you're a (self-declared) nihilist - got it!

Do you believe in NASA's map of Antarctica and the seminal 1911 expedition to the "South Pole"?

My cosmic studies don't go into such matters - they are solely based on a revised / personal / logical interpretation of empiric astronomical observations gathered throughout the centuries - mostly predating the birth of the farcical / monstrous NASA fraud.

If my model turns out to be flatly /roundly / squarely wrong - no harm will be done unto this world. Let's face it: NO ONE on this earth can pretend to solve once and for all the mysteries of our universe. That's just stuff that so-called 'academic scholars' pretend to do - for fame, career and money. All that open-minded freethinkers can do is to attempt to formulate a "most-plausible-thesis" - and all I am doing is exactly that. To be perfectly honest, I never imagined in my wildest dreams to satisfactorily 'resolve' (in a "more-plausible" fashion, that is) for myself the many questions I had concerning the problematic / overly-simplistic Copernican model of our 'solar system'. Yet, this is what I believe to have done - and yes, I still believe in my beliefs : the (unlikely) day I stop doing so, this forum will cease to exist. If you prefer that I keep my cosmic findings for myself, let me know. To be sure, that would certainly spare me loads of (entirely expected) future aggravation in my life. Not that my balls can't take the beating. Come to think of it, I must be a masochist! :P

Again, sincere thanks for your promise to do your best to refrain from 'busting my balls'. I really appreciate that. However, a more welcome / worldly / sincere / intelligent comment on your part would have been something like: "I look forward to read and assess your findings regarding the nature of our cosmos / 'solar system' - although I presently tend to believe that the earth is flat".
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby Painterman on February 29th, 2016, 1:01 am

An observer in Oslo, Norway, sees Polaris 60 degrees above the horizon.

An observer in Venice, Italy, sees Polaris 45 degrees above the horizon.

An observer in Cairo, Egypt, sees Polaris 30 degrees above the horizon.

These figures, which have been public knowledge for centuries with no record of contrary observation, are based on the spherical Earth model's prediction that a sightline from a given geographic location to Polaris makes an angle with the horizon equal to that location's latitude:

"The north celestial pole currently is within a degree of the bright star Polaris (named from the Latin stella polaris, meaning "pole star"). This makes Polaris useful for navigation in the northern hemisphere: not only is it always above the north point of the horizon, but its altitude angle is always (nearly) equal to the observer's geographic latitude. Polaris can, of course, only be seen from locations in the northern hemisphere."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_celestial_pole

The latitudes of these and other cities can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... y_latitude

This equality between an observer's latitude and the altitude of Polaris is exactly what we'd expect on a spherical Earth. As you travel from the north pole to the equator, the surface of the Earth curves a total of 90 degrees, so of course Polaris will go from straight overhead to right on the horizon. If the Earth were flat, however, as you'd travel from the north pole to the equator, there would be no reason for Polaris to change its position in the sky. Rather, Polaris would stay straight overhead, which obviously doesn't happen.

Nor can this difference in the altitude of Polaris be attributed to some sort of parallax (and a supposed near location of Polaris), because the star always maintains its relative position among the other fixed stars. That is, the displacement of Polaris from straight overhead to right on the horizon is part of a rotation of the entire celestial sphere by 90 degrees, seen from the equator versus the north pole, as expected on spherical Earth.
Painterman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: September 16th, 2015, 1:02 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby ICfreely on February 29th, 2016, 3:09 am

simonshack wrote:'Yes-men', you say? Well, you yourself - mon ami - are living proof that I don't strive to surround myself with such folks.


You're absolutely right, Simon! However, yes-men, under the guise of 'supporting' you actually use the flat Earth 'movement' to push your buttons by constantly bringing it up & 'cautioning' everyone not to question the sphere Earth model. For instance, 19.23% of your latest pseudo-intellectual yes-man's posts have been dedicated to the 'flat earth dba' thread. This shit for brains keeps implying I'm a nihilist. But he's too big of a coward to confront me directly or challenge any specific aspects of my posts - a sad troll!

simonshack wrote:In fact, you are now on my (growing) shortlist of people who appear to be senselessly 'fretting' about my humble cosmic model - before even READING a single word about it. Pretty weird stuff, in my book. As for your assertion that "ridiculing opposing points of view are unnecessary & counterproductive" - well, I cannot agree more with you there, my dear IC.


Are you telling me I've made the 'Dean's List'? :o

simonshack wrote:Woah, that's really gracious of you, mate - and a most appreciated promise of yours (I truly do care about my balls). But see, by saying that you'll 'do your best to refrain from bursting my bubble', you sound awfully cocksure about your own (seemingly flat?) earthly / cosmic beliefs. Dogmatic much, IC? Oh no - wait a minute, you're a (self-declared) nihilist - got it!


I'm just playing Devil's advocate. If you were gung-ho about FE I'd poke holes in any weak arguments. No dogmatism. I'm not rooting for any model. Again, your little 'bulldog' declared me a nihilist.

simonshack wrote:If my model turns out to be flatly /roundly / squarely wrong - no harm will be done unto this world. Let's face it: NO ONE on this earth can pretend to solve once and for all the mysteries of our universe. That's just stuff that so-called 'academic scholars' pretend to do - for fame, career and money.


Right on!

simonshack wrote:If you prefer that I keep my cosmic findings for myself, let me know.


Hell no! I sincerely look forward to reading them. Anyhow, as CF's founder you've earned the right to talk about whatever you want. I mean that with all due respect and sincerity.

simonshack wrote:Come to think of it, I must be a masochist! :P


Same here. :lol:

simonshack wrote:Again, sincere thanks for your promise to do your best to refrain from 'busting my balls'. I really appreciate that.


Don't mention it, muchacho. :)

However, a more welcome / worldly / sincere / intelligent comment on your part would have been something like: "I look forward to read and assess your findings regarding the nature of our cosmos / 'solar system' - although I presently tend to believe that the earth is flat".


I truly do look forward to reading and assessing your findings regarding the nature of our cosmos / 'solar system' - although I presently tend to doubt/disbelieve our square-circling psi-gods who supposedly proved the 'Spaceship Earth' model.

In all honesty, I truly hope readers pay attention to my health related posts (for their own good) because they contain life saving information. That's been my goal from day one.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby ICfreely on February 29th, 2016, 3:54 am

fubarfuthark wrote:It is as if Einstein remains a fraud whilst containing a germ of wisdom, if one sort of reads it backwards.


Well put, fubarfuthark! Jabberwocky... :)

fubarfuthark wrote:Well, i am quite curious what kind of infallible method you would propose to use ascertain the situation regarding the buildings in manhattan that would not eventually break down due to human error, equipment limitations or some other problem, as you explained in your last post...


I don't propose to have any infallible methods. I'm quite curious what kind of infallible method was used to determine the Earth's alleged sphericity!

fubarfuthark wrote:Hope you can excuse my jumping in and will not upbraid me for promoting anti-foundationalist ideas in a forum concerned with exposing media fakery. I think anything to do with radical perspectivism is pure poison is when applied to the realm of ethics and would, indeed lead to the kind of thinking that would allow a person (or group) to foist off fake science and fake pictures of the earth on the gullible...


Nothing for me to excuse. Speak your mind as you please & welcome!
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby fubarfuthark on March 8th, 2016, 7:26 pm

I raised it in another thread but I am surprised to have not seen 'the new math' and the introduction of the baffling ideas of Set Theory into the American Curriculum in the context of the 'Sputnik Crisis'. I think that bombarding people with abstraction totally destroys their common sense, possibly also their moral reasoning and sense of self and that this goes hand in hand with the fake pictures of the earth and all the other space-race nonsense.

Look at this piece of utterly obnoxious ideology:

http://www.math.rochester.edu/people/fa ... /smsg.html

Tom Lehrer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIKGV2cTgqA

I think the teaching of these types of abstraction (and inculcating the associated feelings of baffled intimidation in the layman) was essential in order to give the high priests of the scientific paradigm the prestige to introduce other completely counterintuitive and plain wrong ideas into other scientific fields. And rob normal people of the evidence of their senses and their reasoning powers. Even simple things like the relationship between moon and sun, day and night, the fact that people obviously share a lot in common with animals in a non-abstract way (the way they look at you and behave) have been taken away from people, made abstract and into subjects for scientific pronouncements, not sensory experience. And if you cant see what you have in common with an animal, why would you treat it well? You would then feel fine about raising them in brutal captivity and experimenting on them in order to test vain nonsense like 'moisturiser' or tossing them into the grinder, all in the name of the production of rows of rows of chicken sandwiches in Tescos and the other abominations that we now call 'food'. And for that matter, WHY THE FUCK are we eating bananas in the west?

It would almost be funny if it were not so tragic. The other day I saw dutiful and bright-eyed, optimistic looking, lower-middle-class Scottish parents, basic folk with no pretensions, taking their children into the museum to be irradiated with demoralising ideas about being the product of cosmic chance and a so-called big bang, being a nobody in the middle of the vacuum of nowhere randomly thrown onto a spinning ball, which was only anyway recently vacated by some giant lizards thanks to a 'meteor event' which may well also happen to us as well. And all this in the name of trying to be a good parent and do something worthwhile and meritorious on a saturday! It actually made me want to cry. How can you teach your child to 'be good' when they are told that 'scientifically speaking' nothing that they do is of any consequence at all?
fubarfuthark
Member
 
Posts: 60
Joined: February 15th, 2016, 1:20 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby fubarfuthark on March 8th, 2016, 9:47 pm

And here it is...not only did set theory confuse people sufficiently to accept space, it also IS space itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set ... cal_issues

(I am going to no longer cite wikipedia from now on.)

and what can you do with the empty set, in space, or in a Hillbert space? Anything you want, or not. Because it is a thing that is not a thing.

http://www.lacan.com/frameX0.htm
http://poibella.org/emptyset/category/feminism/
http://www.aliens-everything-you-want-to-know.com/
http://nonbinary.org/wiki/Gender_symbol ... ty_symbols
http://thetab.com/uk/edinburgh/2014/10/ ... -spat-7085
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1mA ... is&f=false

Baruch haba b'shem adonai.
fubarfuthark
Member
 
Posts: 60
Joined: February 15th, 2016, 1:20 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby Surface on March 9th, 2016, 9:05 pm

Painterman wrote:An observer in Oslo, Norway, sees Polaris 60 degrees above the horizon.

An observer in Venice, Italy, sees Polaris 45 degrees above the horizon.

An observer in Cairo, Egypt, sees Polaris 30 degrees above the horizon.

These figures, which have been public knowledge for centuries with no record of contrary observation, are based on the spherical Earth model's prediction that a sightline from a given geographic location to Polaris makes an angle with the horizon equal to that location's latitude:

"The north celestial pole currently is within a degree of the bright star Polaris (named from the Latin stella polaris, meaning "pole star"). This makes Polaris useful for navigation in the northern hemisphere: not only is it always above the north point of the horizon, but its altitude angle is always (nearly) equal to the observer's geographic latitude. Polaris can, of course, only be seen from locations in the northern hemisphere."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_celestial_pole

The latitudes of these and other cities can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... y_latitude

This equality between an observer's latitude and the altitude of Polaris is exactly what we'd expect on a spherical Earth. As you travel from the north pole to the equator, the surface of the Earth curves a total of 90 degrees, so of course Polaris will go from straight overhead to right on the horizon. If the Earth were flat, however, as you'd travel from the north pole to the equator, there would be no reason for Polaris to change its position in the sky. Rather, Polaris would stay straight overhead, which obviously doesn't happen.

Nor can this difference in the altitude of Polaris be attributed to some sort of parallax (and a supposed near location of Polaris), because the star always maintains its relative position among the other fixed stars. That is, the displacement of Polaris from straight overhead to right on the horizon is part of a rotation of the entire celestial sphere by 90 degrees, seen from the equator versus the north pole, as expected on spherical Earth.


Exactly what I was thinking about when reading this page! Do we have any other actual and factual evidence for the globe, or is this just the best among them? And why is the picture so skewed in favor of the flat Earth and all easy evidence for a globe model carefully suppressed and /or distorted? That in itself seems to give a lot of weight to globe Earth model without going into speculation.
Surface
Member
 
Posts: 20
Joined: February 20th, 2016, 7:03 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby Painterman on March 10th, 2016, 7:07 pm

Surface,

I recommend the Ushuaia-Alert approach discovered by Simon, as described on the first page of the NASA FE DBA thread (scroll down a bit).

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1810

Also, we have the spherical Earth model's prediction (widely published, yet with no contrary observations on record) of a constant - meaning at all times - 50/50 ratio of Earth surface in daylight versus Earth surface in darkness, as shown at the following link (for illustration purposes only). It is geometrically impossible to shine a spotlight on a pancake and get this distribution of night and day. Yet this is exactly what we expect on a sphere lit by a distant source.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Earth

There is also the fact that people in coastal areas and at sea should often - but, in fact, never do - discern the mountain ranges of distant continents in silhouette against the celestial sphere at the horizon formed by an ocean, if Earth were flat.

Etc., etc.

It is now clear that flatology was never about deducing the shape of the Earth, despite the "skeptical inquiry" routine they lay on thick to deceive us. The first post in the previously linked NASA FE DBA thread explains what's going on.

A year into this farce, it's become obvious why flatology oddly fails to acknowledge slam-dunk arguments, but continues its "skeptical inquiry" tap dance as if nothing happened. One could plausibly assert for a while that many of the leading mouthpieces of the psyop (supported by an army of "it could be flat" public relations helpers on blogs and forums internet-wide) were legitimately "looking into it". But, at this late date, those leaders and their helpers have rather overplayed that hand, made too little progress toward the (easily found) answer of immense consequence they're pretending to seek, and somehow missed noticing too many arguments that instantly debunk the Flat Earth fiction. Their "skeptical inquiry" ruse is blown. They've been revealed for the psyoperators they are.

Actually, it's been a valuable learning experience for fakery busters. Flat Earth has unwittingly provided an object lesson in alternative-media psyops that will aid us in future investigations.
Painterman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: September 16th, 2015, 1:02 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby Surface on March 11th, 2016, 12:24 am

Mr Painterman
Thank you very much for detailed reply. Actually since I am not native English speaker I very much appreciate such elaborate replies that will help me in forming an educated way of expression about these matters. It was well worth the time you invested in answering.
Surface
Member
 
Posts: 20
Joined: February 20th, 2016, 7:03 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby ICfreely on March 11th, 2016, 1:50 am

Spoken like a true Morality Police Officer!
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby Painterman on March 11th, 2016, 9:30 am

Surface,

Thanks, but, honestly, my previous post isn't the best example from which to learn educated English writing. I just reread what I wrote and noticed it contains a lot of idiomatic expressions and some Cluesforum neologisms. Both should be used far more sparingly in posts, for the sake of non-native English speakers new to the forum. Apologies.
Painterman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: September 16th, 2015, 1:02 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby Surface on March 11th, 2016, 7:36 pm

Mr Painterman,
No apologies needed. I spent last night studying that thread you recommended. Very revealing and helpful material there.
Surface
Member
 
Posts: 20
Joined: February 20th, 2016, 7:03 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby NotRappaport on November 24th, 2017, 7:44 am

This is just to explicitly debunk the YouTube "Where is the Sun" videos put out by the channel "conandrum74", which have been brought up in the thread Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$, here and here, but this thread seems a more appropriate place to deal with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te9nu6MgpCA Distance to the sun disproves GLOBAL SPHERE earth? Where is the Sun? Nov 19, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9puRZH0i6Sc Calculate the distance to the Sun (where is the Sun?) Sep 14, 2015

Briefly, what the videos purport to demonstrate is that the sun's position does not match trigonometric calculations for angles at different points along a great circle centered at 23.45° N 90 E°, where the sun is almost directly (89.61°) overhead at 6:00 GMT on June 21, 2015.

The entire demonstration is flawed because he bases all calculations on the demonstrably false assumption that degrees of longitude equate to degrees on his great circle and then proceeds to triangulate using angles that are not correct. It is important to understand that the only great circle whose degrees equate to degrees of longitude is the Equator - and his great circle is inclined by 23.45°. So the use of longitude degrees to calculate the angles leads to the invalid results contained in the video.

Here's an image created from a screenshot in the video where he shows his conclusions. Below each location (A, B, C...) I put the latitude/longitude coordinates he used for that location in the video.
Image
As shown above, here are the coordinates for each location:
A 9.5546306 N 22.8333833 E
B 17.0514972 N 45.0000250 E
C 21.8857083 N 67.8334722 E
D 23.4500000 N 90.0000000 E
E 21.7912111 N 112.8334528 E
F 17.0539000 N 135.0000056 E
G 9.2891083 N 157.8333361 E

We can use the latitude/longitude coordinates to determine the actual distances between those points. This site will do it for you: Latitude/Longitude Distance Calculator (NOAA). And this site will do the calculation and also show you all the formulas to calculate it for yourself: https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html. Once we have the distances between those points, we can easily calculate the expected angular change, in degrees, for each distance by multiplying 360° by the ratio of the distance to Earth's circumference.

We can also use the same high-precision sun position calculator as in the video to get the sun's elevation data at those coordinates for June 21, 2015 06:00 GMT
http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/suns ... h-accuracy.

Below is shown the surface distance between each set of coordinates, the angle traced out by that distance calculated as 360° * (distance / earth circumference), and a comparison between that angle and the change in the sun's elevation between those points (if the difference in sun position is not equal to that angle, that would be a discrepancy).

A-B distance 2536.749441 km, angle: 22.81°
At A, sun is at 24.2691°; at B it is at 47.0832°: a difference of 22.8141 (22.81°): ZERO discrepancy (video claims 1.77°).

B-C distance 2450.709945 km, angle: 22.04°
At B, sun is at 47.0832°, at C it is at 69.1238°: a difference of 22.0406 (22.04°): ZERO discrepancy. (video claims 2.08°).

C-D distance 2278.816995 km, angle: 20.49°
At C, sun is at 69.1238°, at D it is at 89.6183°: a difference of 20.4945 (20.49°): ZERO discrepancy. (video claims 1.62°).

D-E distance 2348.450991 km, angle: 21.12°
At D, sun is at 90.3817°, at E it is at 69.2604°: a difference of 21.1213 (21.12°): ZERO discrepancy (video claims 1.76°).
note: when going in the direction of D to E, we calculate D's sun elevation as 180° − 89.6183 to account for the elevation passing through the 90° maximum on the way from D to E.

E-F distance 2381.003892 km, angle: 21.41°
At E, sun is at 69.2604°, at F it is at 47.8468°: a difference of 21.4136 (21.41°): ZERO discrepancy (video claims 2.85°).

F-G distance 2615.689901 km, angle: 23.52°
At F, sun is at 47.8468°, at G it is at 24.3227°: a difference of 23.5241 (23.52°): ZERO discrepancy (video claims 1.82°).

So no discrepancy at all, just more flat-earth fail. :puke:
NotRappaport
Member
 
Posts: 124
Joined: October 3rd, 2017, 10:01 pm

Our World-The 'cold' of space & our Universe that isn't

Postby simonshack on November 24th, 2017, 12:11 pm

Thanks, Notrap. :)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests