ICfreely wrote:Anyhow, good luck with your upcoming final "TYCHO/SSSS"!
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.
ICfreely wrote:Going forward, I'll do my best to refrain from busting your balls/bursting your bubble.
Do you believe in NASA's map of Antarctica and the seminal 1911 expedition to the "South Pole"?
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.
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.
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!
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.
simonshack wrote:If you prefer that I keep my cosmic findings for myself, let me know.
simonshack wrote:Come to think of it, I must be a masochist!
simonshack wrote: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".
fubarfuthark wrote:It is as if Einstein remains a fraud whilst containing a germ of wisdom, if one sort of reads it backwards.
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...
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...
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."
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests