Kevin Alfred Strom -- 4d I notice that the Theodolite site is credited to an outfit called "Aether Cosmology." I decided to look up their other publications, and found this mass of risible nonsense: https://invidious.tiekoetter.com/watch?v=40jpDS-65qU They also distribute kooky "Biblical cosmology" texts. I also wasted considerable time I'll never get back to reading the Theodolite screed. Whole sections are totally empty, others give "missing image" errors, and quite a few sentences of the text are unintelligible, almost as bad as the inchoate rambling in their video above. Furthermore, their core assumption that star positions should appear lower to an observer on a globe than on a plane ("If the earth's curvature is real and causes the angular descent of stars") is faulty (along with their conclusion that occlusions would happen earlier if the Earth were spherical). A simple thought experiment can validate this. You're standing on a plane, looking at a star. You're looking up at some angle. All else being equal, replace the plane with a globe. Does the angle change? Replace the place with a cube, or a cylinder, or a dodecahedron -- or with empty space. The angle to the star will not change. Lastly, the Stellarium software, on which they depend for predicting occlusion times, is intended for star observation session planning, not exact timing. It can be a minute or two off at times, and atmospheric conditions add more potential errors. reply [1 reply]I notice that the Theodolite site is credited to an outfit called "Aether Cosmology." I decided to look up their other publications, and found this mass of risible nonsense: https://invidious.tiekoetter.com/watch?v=40jpDS-65qU They also distribute kooky "Biblical cosmology" texts. I also wasted considerable time I'll never get back to reading the Theodolite screed. Whole sections are totally empty, others give "missing image" errors, and quite a few sentences of the text are unintelligible, almost as bad as the inchoate rambling in their video above. Furthermore, their core assumption that star positions should appear lower to an observer on a globe than on a plane ("If the earth's curvature is real and causes the angular descent of stars") is faulty (along with their conclusion that occlusions would happen earlier if the Earth were spherical). A simple thought experiment can validate this. You're standing on a plane, looking at a star. You're looking up at some angle. All else being equal, replace the plane with a globe. Does the angle change? Replace the place with a cube, or a cylinder, or a dodecahedron -- or with empty space. The angle to the star will not change. Lastly, the Stellarium software, on which they depend for predicting occlusion times, is intended for star observation session planning, not exact timing. It can be a minute or two off at times, and atmospheric conditions add more potential errors.
thread · root 7bc79190…b110 · depth 10 · · selected 0c035043…58e7
thread
root 7bc79190…b110 · depth 10 · · selected 0c035043…58e7
😂😂😂 I would love to see that too
I don't buy into flat earth because:The time it takes to fly from London to New York to Tokyo to London is significantly shorter than the time ittakes to fly Dubai to Miami to Hong Kong to Dubai, and that time is longer than the time it takes to fly Sydneyto Sao Paolo to Johannesburg to Sydney.This only makes sense if the earth is round and thicker near the equator. If the earth was flat with the northpole in the middle, the Sydney circumnavigation would be the longest, London the shortest. I can't think of anyother explanation.
I am a former broadcast engineer. If the Earth were flat, FM radio stations in Oahu could be heard clearly inLos Angeles 24/7. But they can't be heard there at all. The signals are blocked by the curvature of the Earth.Radio broadcast and communications engineering coverage calculations have to take that curvature into account inorder to be accurate. The Earth is not flat.
The celestial theodolite experiment is hard to reconcile.It eliminates common variables that tend to be disputed.It is data heavy so feel free to have an llm break it down.https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/Celestial_Theodolite/Celestial_Theodolite_Index
Looks like obfuscation of the obvious with ten jiggers of needless complexity added. When traveling from thenorthern hemisphere across the equator into the southern hemisphere, Polaris sets, still-visible constellationsbecome inverted, and new constellations rise and come into view. None of that could possibly happen on a flatEarth.
I think you're ignoring the experiment and moving to a different example because it's uncomfortable to address.Whenever the topic comes up the goalposts are always moved.The perceived 'complexity' is not that complex on the face of it.Predicting the position of stars using globe based data for when a star is occluded by a mountain peak acrossover 40 data points is a pretty comprehensive way to test the hypothesis. The complexity is to eliminate thetypical "you didn't control for x or y".It's simple - does globe or 'flat' geometry produce the expected observations.It has to be comprehensive so that it can't be picked apart with silly talking points like refraction.People don't want to address this because of the potentially uncomfortable conclusions. And falsification of theclaims requires no further proof.
so go ahead and explain the phenomena he mentioned, why do observable constellations become inverted when youmove from the northern to southern "hemisphere"?because I can explain it in a few sentences if we start with a globe hypothesis.ie the hypothesis matches the observations people have made for a few thousand years.surely your explanation is even more simple and doesn't move the goalposts at all.
It's understandable to try use the stars as proof when you spend no time on the topic, but not even anti-flatearthers use that talking point anymore. Stars actually make a stronger case for a geocentric model.So in fact, the explanation was simple. 👍https://npub180x9vv4yuagf2w3qzmuertvv46ccee6n0wp0yh3zcz7nhyqrmzuqzjmehq.blossom.band/c778cf7b4a9ee1ad23269a84dfb8d5385300024beebeac90496305b9eb07335a.mp4
so this is a video of somebody just straight up lying. rather telling if you ask me....anybody who's ever looked at the night sky knows that the apparent motion of the stars doesn't change if youlook south instead of north.are you going to try and explain anything yourself or just share stupid videos?
I notice that the Theodolite site is credited to an outfit called "Aether Cosmology." I decided to look up theirother publications, and found this mass of risible nonsense:https://invidious.tiekoetter.com/watch?v=40jpDS-65qUThey also distribute kooky "Biblical cosmology" texts.I also wasted considerable time I'll never get back to reading the Theodolite screed. Whole sections are totallyempty, others give "missing image" errors, and quite a few sentences of the text are unintelligible, almost asbad as the inchoate rambling in their video above.Furthermore, their core assumption that star positions should appear lower to an observer on a globe than on aplane ("If the earth's curvature is real and causes the angular descent of stars") is faulty (along with theirconclusion that occlusions would happen earlier if the Earth were spherical).A simple thought experiment can validate this. You're standing on a plane, looking at a star. You're looking upat some angle. All else being equal, replace the plane with a globe. Does the angle change? Replace the placewith a cube, or a cylinder, or a dodecahedron -- or with empty space. The angle to the star will not change.Lastly, the Stellarium software, on which they depend for predicting occlusion times, is intended for starobservation session planning, not exact timing. It can be a minute or two off at times, and atmosphericconditions add more potential errors.
I don't buy into flat earth because:
The time it takes to fly from London to New York to Tokyo to London is significantly shorter than the time it takes to fly Dubai to Miami to Hong Kong to Dubai, and that time is longer than the time it takes to fly Sydney to Sao Paolo to Johannesburg to Sydney.
This only makes sense if the earth is round and thicker near the equator. If the earth was flat with the north pole in the middle, the Sydney circumnavigation would be the longest, London the shortest. I can't think of any other explanation.
Kevin Alfred Strom -- 8d [parent] | reply [1 reply]I am a former broadcast engineer. If the Earth were flat, FM radio stations in Oahu could be heard clearly in Los Angeles 24/7. But they can't be heard there at all. The signals are blocked by the curvature of the Earth. Radio broadcast and communications engineering coverage calculations have to take that curvature into account in order to be accurate. The Earth is not flat.
Sovereign Being -- 5d [parent] | reply [1 reply]The celestial theodolite experiment is hard to reconcile. It eliminates common variables that tend to be disputed. It is data heavy so feel free to have an llm break it down. https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/Celestial_Theodolite/Celestial_Theodolite_Index
Kevin Alfred Strom -- 5d [parent] | reply [1 reply]Looks like obfuscation of the obvious with ten jiggers of needless complexity added. When traveling from the northern hemisphere across the equator into the southern hemisphere, Polaris sets, still-visible constellations become inverted, and new constellations rise and come into view. None of that could possibly happen on a flat Earth.
Sovereign Being -- 5d [parent] | reply [1 reply]I think you're ignoring the experiment and moving to a different example because it's uncomfortable to address. Whenever the topic comes up the goalposts are always moved. The perceived 'complexity' is not that complex on the face of it. Predicting the position of stars using globe based data for when a star is occluded by a mountain peak across over 40 data points is a pretty comprehensive way to test the hypothesis. The complexity is to eliminate the typical "you didn't control for x or y". It's simple - does globe or 'flat' geometry produce the expected observations. It has to be comprehensive so that it can't be picked apart with silly talking points like refraction. People don't want to address this because of the potentially uncomfortable conclusions. And falsification of the claims requires no further proof.
f985d309…9bbb -- 5d [parent] | reply [1 reply]so go ahead and explain the phenomena he mentioned, why do observable constellations become inverted when you move from the northern to southern "hemisphere"? because I can explain it in a few sentences if we start with a globe hypothesis. ie the hypothesis matches the observations people have made for a few thousand years. surely your explanation is even more simple and doesn't move the goalposts at all.
Sovereign Being -- 4d [parent] | reply [1 reply]It's understandable to try use the stars as proof when you spend no time on the topic, but not even anti-flat earthers use that talking point anymore. Stars actually make a stronger case for a geocentric model. So in fact, the explanation was simple. 👍 https://npub180x9vv4yuagf2w3qzmuertvv46ccee6n0wp0yh3zcz7nhyqrmzuqzjmehq.blossom.band/c778cf7b4a9ee1ad23269a84dfb8d5385300024beebeac90496305b9eb07335a.mp4
f985d309…9bbb -- 4d [parent] | reply [1 reply]so this is a video of somebody just straight up lying. rather telling if you ask me.... anybody who's ever looked at the night sky knows that the apparent motion of the stars doesn't change if you look south instead of north. are you going to try and explain anything yourself or just share stupid videos?
> Furthermore, their core assumption that star positions should appear lower to an observer on a globe than on a plane ("If the earth's curvature is real and causes the angular descent of stars") is faulty
Where's the fault? Can you be specific?
Stellarium uses globe data and it is considered very accurate for mapping the timing and positions of stars. That's why it was used. It's interesting how it's used as a source to support the globe model predictions in other scenarios, yet here it's 'not accurate'.