A quick debunk of the flat earth model - Pt 2

Quickly following on from the flat map joke, this second part deals with how astronomy has helped to prove the earth is a globe - globe geometry works in astronomy and the equipment you can buy is engineered according to globe geometry. Using a mount called an 'Equatorial Mount' would just simply not work on flat earth.

These mounts are similar to tripods, but their axis are not simple up/down - left/right. The two axis are called 'Right Ascension' or 'RA' and 'Declination' or 'Dec'. Once they are set for the latitude you are at, simply align the scope to a target star, planet or deep space object, you can then 'track' the movement of the object while observing or taking photos which require long exposures. The mount will follow the object by syncing with the earth's rotation. This can be computer controlled with software such as Stellarium or Cartes De Ciel.

Your telescope would require accurate setting up in order to track without drifting off, and this is relatively easy using a Equatorial mount. The mount will have a gauge on its polar axis that you use to set to the latitude you are at, and through the centre of the polar axis is a small scope with a reticel imprinted with the celestial pole point, Polaris, Cassiopeia and the Big Dipper. For the southern hemisphere the reticel will have different points and a little bit more difficult as there is no southern pole star bright enough to align to. But once you are aligned, away you go.

The reticel inside the polar axis alignment scope.

The following two images describe how the equatorial mount works by setting up to your latitude.

Globe model - Works.

oops, spot the typos, done late at night.

Flat model - does not work, no matter how much you fudge it or invent flat earth magic

 So, There you have it. This is what I call 'in your face' evidence, which can be backed up with practical use, anyone can verify this, it is fool proof (so flatties may have a hard time with that)


ps: notice the images are a bit low res, NASA doesn't pay me enough to buy high end software.

A quick debunk of the Flat earth model

Prompted by a YouTube video and a long chat I had with an intellectual moron too big for his socks. We were positing on the shape of the earth, how sunrise and sunset works along with ships over the horizon amongst other nuggets of his moronic wisdom.

For any 'hypothesis' to become theory, it has to stand up to scrutiny, note, on a personal and scientific level, flat earth is not even a hypothesis at the moment (or any moment). So in this article i will attempt to study the geography, geometry and physics of a flat model against a globe.

At first glance you will notice there is a great distortion of the southern hemisphere continents and countries. Also it looks identical to some cartographic representations, most notably the Gleason map and an Azimuthal equidistant map.Both represent a map of time zones in a 2d form of a 3d world. All paper maps are a 2d representation of a 3d world.If you have ever studied maps, you will notice that very early maps were incomplete and simplistic. Maps have developed since then to the maps we see today. This was achieved with naval and land based surveying with greater and greater accuracy as time ran by. To the point now that navigation between points is much easier and accurate. We know distances of all land masses and locations and this works under the globe model. But flat earth ?, there is no universally accepted map, but most advocates go for a gleason or AE map. It should be noted that flat earth proponents have had as long to survey the world as anyone else, thousands of years. There are lots of software out there, any OS, any type - astronomy, weather, GPS, simulation etc etc - hundreds if not thousands - all coded on globe earth geometry - and they work, just as you see in real life. How many flat earth simulations are there - err, none.

There are many many objects that we see in the sky over night and day and they move, or at least they appear to move. These are the sun, moon and the stars - I could also include the International space station, Satellites and comets, asteroids etc.

The sun, for most of us, we see everyday. It is obviously a ball shape, because no matter which direction you see it or how far it is, it remains a ball. If it was flat, you would only see it disc shaped if you were directly underneath it, if it was off to one side, or at an angle, it would appear oval, but it doesn't. We can watch it as it goes across the sky, we see it set and rise. But if you look at the flat earth map, and that the sun is placed between the tropics and equator and revolves around the earth on this 'circuit'. As soon as I saw this I saw many anomalies straight away. How does it explain night and day, how does it explain time zones and seasons.

Most flat earthers tend to go for the sun being 'local' and about 3,000 miles high. The extremes go between it changing between 5 - 10 thousand miles high, and some its just above, or in the clouds. If you look at the sun (with the proper filters) it is a perfect disc.Next we need to relate its size to what we see. The angular size of the sun should change quite drastically between its heights and distances,from my perspective of my location I should notice a difference in size of 40% ish. This could be worse for different locations such as extreme northern and southern locations.In all honesty, even if the sun is 'close' it should cover more of the earth in dusk, or twilight. Its the biggest, brightest object in the sky. Even if it didn't cover the world in dusk, twilight, we should be able to see it as a bright point of light at night, larger and brighter than the stars.

The moon, we can apply all the above the same way for the moon, except the moon gives us more clues in that it is textured and has phases. As the moon travels across the sky, it always shows the same features, some flatties say this is proof that it is also flat, not so because it doesnt matter from which angle you look at it, it is always circular - again, the only shape that does not change could only be a globe. Its angular size does not change by much, but it is more noticeable than that of the sun (supermoon etc). How the moon looks is different in different locations of the world, for instance in Australia the moons phases are reversed and so the face of the moon is also upended. The moon is also responsible for a solar eclipse, and earth is responsible for a lunar eclipse, it should be noted that the position of the moon is predicted for the utmost accuracy for every single location in the world and at solar eclipse it occurs exactly as predictions of the moon's movement and placement. On eclipses, it can be viewed differently on differing locations.


I have done some measuring and basic trigonometry to demonstrate how completely wrong the flat earth model is to reality regarding simple things like the day length, sun rise and set, including the direction that I see in reality compared to what I should see on a flat earth. I have calculated on the premise that most Flearthers say the sun is only 3,000 miles above a flat plane. Simple trig finds the actual distance from the ground to the sun, along with its angle from the horizon. Whilst I do not claim it is to exact scale, it is a good representation. I have done this on the most commonly used map flearthers present. Suffice it to say, there does not seem to be a definitive flat map or any model to match, plus not all flearthers agree on basic data - come on guys, you have had as long as everyone else has had to come up with one.

So, here is my little model.

This represents 2 days of the year for my location in the UK, 21st June and 21st December

The Suns represent the position of sunrise (east), Noon and set (west), The red arrows represent the direction that I should see the rise and set for a flat earth model, the green arrows represent the true direction (in relation to heading from my location). The suns have been depicted in a relative scale to their difference in angular size they would appear on a flat earth model. The difference in largest and smallest size would be very noticeable, with a reduction of up to almost 50%.

The data I calculated is as follows (a flat representation), of a 3,000 mile high sun
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 21st, my shortest day.
Distance to sun at rise and set = 6200ish miles, elevation angle of 25 degs at rise and set, elevation angle of 55 degs at noon.

On June 21st, my longest day.
Distance to sun at rise and set = 7100ish miles, elevation angle of 28 degs at rise and set, elevation angle of 30 degs at noon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reality.
On December 21st, my shortest day.
Distance to sun at rise and set = a bloody long way, elevation angle of 0 degs at rise and set, elevation angle of 14 degs at noon.

On June 21st, my longest day.
Distance to sun at rise and set = a bloody long way, elevation angle of 0 degs at rise and set, elevation angle of 58 degs at noon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We can immediately see the problems here, the directions to sunrise and sunset are totally out by some 15 degrees.As the sun transits the sky at 15 degs per hour, all our days should be 2 hours longer. The degrees of elevation are well out of sync, on Dec 21st a flat earth sun at noon would be much higher, almost as high as June 21st in reality and June 21st should be almost half as high as reality. That is almost the opposite of reality. At those elevations to both sunsets and sunrises, they are high enough to NOT set or rise from. The flat earth sunrise and sunset on June 21st are furthest that the sun should be, but at 28 degrees there is no explanation that can account for the sun going below the horizon, coupled with the fact that all other positions will be CLOSER than the furthest view-able distance the sun should NEVER rise or set at all, it would be just be a continuous circular path around us. No amount of 'perspective' (a misunderstood perception 😉) or 'atmospheric lensing' (a none existent phenomenon) is going to shift a large body over 15 degrees lower than it is. Essentially, there should never be a night time with a flat earth sun. We should always be able to see it.

Lets take another example, longest day in the northern hemisphere around June the 21st. There parts of northern Europe, Northern Canada Alaska and the Arctic circle enjoy some 24 hour sun. In the southern hemisphere the longest day i about December 21st. There are no habitable land masses south enough to enjoy 24 hour sun, but Australia, south america have some nice extended daylight. The Antarctic, however, does enjoy 24 hour sun. But flatties say this is a myth. So all those resident scientists, conservationists and some 40,000 tourists each year have to be liars (really, come on).

In order for the sun to cover the land masses that it does, it has to 'morph' into different shapes. This representation below is itself problematic, for it to be more accurate, it would have to be like an inverted kidney shape. If it were a circular shape, as suggested by flatties, then the circular shape required to cover the expected land masses would be large enough to illuminate the earth for longer periods that it does.

There are added problems in the Equatorial regions, especially the equator. Throughout the year, countries in the equatorial regions have roughly equal length days and nights of 12 hours. This is an imposibilty on a flat earth as the directions of sunrise and sunset are due east and west. On the flat earth it should look more circular, coming from North east and going North west. On the equinoxes, if you were standing facing south in Nairobi (African city pretty much on the equator) the sun will be rising over your left shoulder, straight over your head, setting over your right shoulder, again, on a flat earth this would be coming from behind you, and going away behind you. For the rest of the world it is also different to what a flat earth would be.

As these were the simplest observations you can make, there is no reason why you should think the earth is flat - flat earth geometry does not fit reality, whereas globe earth geometry fits perfectly. Unless of course there is 'magic atmospheric deflecting mirrors in the dome coupled with the human eyes inability to see straight lines.


All these data points are verifiable (except the flat earth ones), if you want to visualise and confirm the suns path in your locality I highly recommend the following resources.

http://photoephemeris.com/

The photographers ephimeris. A highly popular tool for photographers, especially landscape photographers. I too often use it to check sun heights and directions so I can plan a shoot as to where and when i should be for the perfect lighting angle. I have used it lots of times, in many different countries. It is accurate and spot on. All programmed on globe geometry.

https://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php?lang=en
http://andrewmarsh.com/software/

A couple of really useful web apps detailing sun transits, configurable for your local area, if you live in a suburban area you could calculate over which buildings you can see the sun over at any time of day. Again, all programmed for globe geometry.

http://stellarium.org/

Although astronomy software, it can be used to visualise predicted paths of the sun throughout the day in your area.

I hope to cover the night skies shortly, as soon as I get my telescope equipment together and set up.

Flatties freind - The Nikon P900

The Nikon P900 - the flatties friend

It seems that the Nikon P900 is the flat earth conspicist's favourite camera, yet it is unclear why. Perhaps it is the zoom ratio of 83X that attracts them.

First the specifications:

Lens - 4mm - 357mm and Vibration Reduction
zoom ratio - 4.3mm x83
35mm equivalent - 24mm - 2000mm
Aperture - f2.8 - f6.5
CCD - 16 megapixels - 5.6 crop
image size - 4608*3456
Autofocus
Manual focus - by stepper motor, not true manual as it has no focus ring on the lens.

At first glance the spec looks pretty impressive. It is obvious that the FEr is going by the zoom ratio, have often seen FErs comment it is the most powerful camera on the market. Which it is not, it does have the longest zoom ratio, but that means nothing in terms of reach.

I think it is obvious that the FEr is thinking that the 83x zoom refers to magnification. Not so. Zoom ratio is based on its shortest focal length (4.3mm) to its longest focal length (357mm). Focal length is the important factor here and this camera has mediocre focal length. If we were to compare it to the human eye we get a better understanding of its actual magnification. The human eye is estimated to be the equivalent of 50mm, so a lens with a focal length of 100mm could be considered to be a 2X magnification. This system is used to categorise optical equipment such as binoculars and spotting scopes. You may see the designation of 8X - 50 quoted for a pair of binoculars which means 8X is the magnification factor (400mm) and the 50 refers to its front objective lens diamater (50mm). Objective lens is also a crucial factor.

So comparing it in terms of magnification, at its longest focal length it equals X7.4

Another factor to take into account is the sensor crop factor, this is comparing the sensors physical size compared to the industry standard sensor size of 35mm (or 135 standard), the crop factor for the P900 is 5.6, the sensor being not much bigger than a finger nail. This is the factor that gives it an apparent focal length range of 24mm - 2000mm. Basically this means that the camera crops an area that is 5.6 smaller than a 35mm sensor. Sensors this small will have inferior focusing and noise performance over a full 35mm sensor. However, it does give an impressive image size of 16 megapixels 4608*3456.

So how does it compare to other cameras. I can only compare it directly with my camera and lens setup as I do not have the P900 (nor would i want to) or another superzoom point and shoot.

I have DSLR camera bodies with interchangable lenses. My main camera is the Nikon D600. This has a full 35mm sensor of 24 megapixels. My back up camera is a Nikon D7100 again with 24 megapixels, but it is a 1.5 crop factor. I mostly use 2 lenses, a Sigma 150-600mm 4x telephoto zoom and a 600mm F4.

Putting the 600mm F4 lens on the D7100 gives an equivalent focal length of 900mm, but with its sensor size of 24 megapixels being a third more pixels than the P900.

I also have a Skywatcher 200p Newtonian reflector telescope, with a focal length of 1000mm F5. I use the DSLrs in conjunction with barlow lenses of 2X and 4X, giving me an effective focal lengths of 3000mm and 6000mm.

One more factor needs to be addressed in these comparisons is aperture. Aperture refers to the size of the opening of the cameras or lens diaphragm iris, these are refered to as F stops, the lower the number, the wider the aperture. This controls how much light is let through to the sensor. The factors are not measured in sizes but in ratios and this is important as the front objective lens influences this.

Once again, I will compare the P900 against my equipment. The P900 is quite a small compact point and shoot camera, in a line up of the P900 - D7100+600mm - D7100 + telescope the P900 has the smallest objective lens, the the 600mm and then the telescope at 200mm. The P900 is going to let the least amount of light in to the sensor.

So why is this important, it is because it seems that FErs seem to think this camera will outperform other cameras and telescopes. Obviously it is not. It is quite good for photos/videos of the moon and I have seen some good results. But when it comes to the stars and planets it just does not cut it, it has not been designed for astrophotography, telescopes are. This is due to the objective lens size, you need as much light in as you can get for stars etc, and the telescope wins hands down, 200mm against,what, a few milimetres.

There are a lot of videos posted on YouTube showing stars and planets that are more like 'rippling orbs'. They are all out of focus, the poster is adamant that that is what they really look like.There are lots of images of the stars, planets and other celestial objects taken by astronomers professional and amatuers alike, using equipment made for the job. However, the average FEr seems to think they have discovered that they are all wrong over 500 years of the telescope, and the P900 shows this. Its a complete myth. Quite simply put, it is not up to the job, and while the FEr continues to have this arrogance they will never know their mistakes, as per rebelwithoutapause who has been told numerous times, but insists he is right. SMH
. Personally I think this is one of the most comical, laughable claim from FErs, it is just plain stupid

So why is it doing this. Light, or lack of. Cameras focus by 2 methods, phase detection and contrast detect. Phase detection is used exclusively by cameras with optical view finders as they are in DSLRs, contrast detect is used by electronic viewfinders and LCD screen on point and shoot types, contrast detection is also used by DSLrs as well. Any autofocus camera is going to have serious issues with dark subjects and night time. There simply is not enough light to focus on. DSLRs and some point and shoot cameras overcome this by using infra red emmiters, this is generally only useful in short range photography, ie at night, with portraits. A quick burst of infra red is emmited and the bounced back light helps to focus. But a single star, planet in a black sky, no chance. Manual focus is the preffered method for astrophotography, or alternatively you could autofocus on something large and bright more than say a kilometer away (as that will put it in the range of infinity) or even autofocus the moon, then switch off autofocus and do not refocus. The moon will be at infinity and then so will the stars (this is not guaranteed, there remains an issue of not enough light)

Th resulting 'rippling orbs' is simply refracted light caused by the aperture diaphraghm scattering the light onto the sensor, we refer to this as 'bokeh'. Here are 3 videos showing this effect.