Hat is so absurd about having size equal to the whole ? What of this is contrary to divine will, or is impossible by divine Nature, or is inadmissible by infinite Nature? These things must be entirely demonstrated by you, if you will wish to infer from here anything of the absurd. In fact, Rothmann responded to this argument of Tycho's by saying Ĭopernicans offered a religious response to Tycho's geometry: titanic, distant stars might seem unreasonable, but they were not, for the Creator could make his creations that large if he wanted. Tycho saidĭeduce these things geometrically if you like, and you will see how many absurdities (not to mention others) accompany this assumption by inference. And what if the parallax was even smaller than anyone thought, so the stars were yet more distant? Then they would all have to be even larger still. (As a matter of fact, most stars visible to the naked eye are giants, supergiants, or large, bright main-sequence stars.) And, Tycho said, the more prominent stars would have to be even larger still. Moreover, the only way the stars could be so distant and still appear the sizes they do in the sky would be if even average stars were gigantic-at least as big as the orbit of the Earth, and of course vastly larger than the sun. Tycho used basic geometry to show that, assuming a small parallax that just escaped detection, the distance to the stars in the Copernican system would have to be 700 times greater than the distance from the sun to Saturn. I guess that any photographer wanting to take a striking image of Sydney will try to get its most familiar landmarks, the Harbour Bridge and the Opera House, in the picture somehow, even if it means throwing geography to the winds! Fortunately the picture showing star trails over the Opera House earlier in this thread does appear to be physically possible, though the photographer's blog describing his methods does imply there was a great deal of processing involved. To be fair, the photographer describes it as 'Southern Hemisphere star trails stacked over a night image of the Sydney Opera House', so the use of the word 'stacked' might give a warning that it is a composite. Either it is too low in the sky, or it is not to the south of the viewpoint, or both. Searching Google Images for 'Sydney star trails', I would say at least half of the top twenty results are physically impossible, because the celestial pole is in the wrong place. Just a word of warning on star trail time lapse photographs: some popular images on the internet, including several showing the south celestial pole with Sydney Opera House in the background, are composites. This is inarguable proof that the Earth is not flat, so if you ever get into an argument with someone who claims to believe in the Flat Earth (and a lot of them, of course, are just trolling), then ask them to explain this problem first to save time. This is only possible if we are on a globe. Here's the view from Sydney, at the exact same time!Ĭlearly, despite looking in nearly exactly opposite direction (on a flat earth), we are actually looking at the same piece of sky. away from the North Pole) at the same time, then what do they see in the sky? If people in both places look South (i.e. Now in the southern winter the nights are long, just before sunrise in Sydney the sun has set in Santiago. This all creates an excellent demonstration of the shape of the Earth.Ĭonsider two places on the globe, Sydney in Australia and Santiago in Chile (any similar locations will do). Crux give us a similar useful locating tool for the southern celestial pole, as the longer arms of the cross point towards the pole.Īnother thing that people in the North don't often think about is that in the South the stars seem to rotate clockwise around the celestial south pole, whereas in the North they rotate counter-clockwise. There is however an equivalent of Ursa Major, the constellation known as Crux, or more commonly The Southern Cross. In the Southern Hemisphere there's no easy equivalent of Polaris, as the southern celestial pole (the point at which all the stars seem to rotate about) is in a region of the sky with few bright stars. This is a likely explanation as to why most successful flat earth promoters are in the Northern Hemisphere. You might even remember that the last two stars of Ursa Major point at Polaris, and Polaris is always within a degree of true north, so quite useful for navigation.įar fewer people in the northern hemisphere are familiar with the appearance of the skies in the Southern Hemisphere. People are also generally familiar with Polaris, the Pole Star or North star. In the norther hemisphere even the most casual observer is generally familiar with at least one constellation: Ursa Major, the Great Bear, aka "The Big Dipper" in the US or "The Plough" in the UK.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |