Years ago when satelite TV was new to the UK I bought the parts to recieve the old analogue system. I was very surprised my simple idea for alignement worked. A plumbline and simple magnetic compass. The dish had a crude protractor ( 27 deg ? ). I remember saying to myself it was the first time I could say without doubt the facts stood up about the world as reported by NASA. The big surprise was it worked first time. I never doubted the science, however one needs simple proof of all beliefs.
Recently some have said we never have travelled more than 300 miles from Earth ( they do not make it clear if man or machine, sort of implied both as I read it ). I think radiation is their reason or aliens saying we can't. Satelite TV shows we have ( circa 22 000 miles ). We could ask friends to give their dish positions for example in Spain where the Brits watch Sky TV and here in the UK to see the Earth curvature. Freesat also is a well used system by Brits abroad. One can buy a complete HD Freesat package from Aldi for $100 which even has a satelite finder meter ( seems harder than a compass ). Coax cable is supplied.
I seem to remember I could rotate by perhaps 2 degrees up and around to get French TV ( i.e. not much ). This was the early 1980's. It was a 1 minute job if I wanted to watch French TV. I marked the pole position with a scratch mark and on the U bolts.
Looking at the link below the changes in position are not subtle even when the UK. Goodness knows how I got my satelite info in 1983? Perhaps a book that came with the dish. Here are examples of first on the list ( Eutel 13E ).
Exeter beam elevation= 29.9, Azimuth= 162.8 (magnetic compass), Polarisation= -13.1
Oxford beam elevation= 29.3, Azimuth= 164.9 (magnetic compass), Polarisation= -11.0
Norwich beam elevation= 28.9, Azimuth= 167.3 (magnetic compass), Polarisation= -8.8
Madrid ( Spain ) beam elevation= 40.2, Azimuth= 158.1 (magnetic compass), Polarisation= -18.7
Oslo ( Norway ) beam elevation= 22.0, Azimuth= 175.8 (magnetic compass), Polarisation= -1.3
It still can be said a flat Earth will do the same. I think if plotted the erros would favour a round Earth. The Oslo and Madrid examples should show this error clearly. If teaching this at school I would choose this example. It's good to use something seen every day that tells a truth.
http://www.satsig.net/maps/satellite-tv-dish-pointing-uk-ireland.htm
Recently some have said we never have travelled more than 300 miles from Earth ( they do not make it clear if man or machine, sort of implied both as I read it ). I think radiation is their reason or aliens saying we can't. Satelite TV shows we have ( circa 22 000 miles ). We could ask friends to give their dish positions for example in Spain where the Brits watch Sky TV and here in the UK to see the Earth curvature. Freesat also is a well used system by Brits abroad. One can buy a complete HD Freesat package from Aldi for $100 which even has a satelite finder meter ( seems harder than a compass ). Coax cable is supplied.
I seem to remember I could rotate by perhaps 2 degrees up and around to get French TV ( i.e. not much ). This was the early 1980's. It was a 1 minute job if I wanted to watch French TV. I marked the pole position with a scratch mark and on the U bolts.
Looking at the link below the changes in position are not subtle even when the UK. Goodness knows how I got my satelite info in 1983? Perhaps a book that came with the dish. Here are examples of first on the list ( Eutel 13E ).
Exeter beam elevation= 29.9, Azimuth= 162.8 (magnetic compass), Polarisation= -13.1
Oxford beam elevation= 29.3, Azimuth= 164.9 (magnetic compass), Polarisation= -11.0
Norwich beam elevation= 28.9, Azimuth= 167.3 (magnetic compass), Polarisation= -8.8
Madrid ( Spain ) beam elevation= 40.2, Azimuth= 158.1 (magnetic compass), Polarisation= -18.7
Oslo ( Norway ) beam elevation= 22.0, Azimuth= 175.8 (magnetic compass), Polarisation= -1.3
It still can be said a flat Earth will do the same. I think if plotted the erros would favour a round Earth. The Oslo and Madrid examples should show this error clearly. If teaching this at school I would choose this example. It's good to use something seen every day that tells a truth.
http://www.satsig.net/maps/satellite-tv-dish-pointing-uk-ireland.htm
An interesting factoid.
"Disregarding refraction, on a perfectly flat plain like the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah, if one's eyes are 9 inches above the ground, one would be able to see at night a flashlight one mile distant laying on the surface but not if one lowers their eyes to 7 inches. For example per the above diagram, that might be between the tangent point and Object B."
David Senesac Visual Line of Sight Calculations dependent on Earth's Curvature
"Disregarding refraction, on a perfectly flat plain like the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah, if one's eyes are 9 inches above the ground, one would be able to see at night a flashlight one mile distant laying on the surface but not if one lowers their eyes to 7 inches. For example per the above diagram, that might be between the tangent point and Object B."
David Senesac Visual Line of Sight Calculations dependent on Earth's Curvature
One thing I saw in Cornwall was the Sun lowering over the horizon out at sea. At the last moment I saw a very bright green flash that I took to be something very bad. An old man walking his dog on the cliff above hadn't seen it but knew it was sometimes seen. It seems I was at the ideal height of about 10 metres above sea level ( The Williams Inn ) to see it. I am told the green is the real colour of the Sun. Also due to refraction the Sun is fully set when we can see tha last complete Sun disc. That is another Sun, Earth, Moon coincidence.
It is said the Moon seeming to be larger on the horizon is not totally understood. I saw a Red Moon in 1982 circa July 6th on a beach in the south of France. I took it to be normal for France. In fact it was a rare event recently repeated here in the UK. I have to say the UK version was hardly different to the Moon on the horizon.
It is said the Moon seeming to be larger on the horizon is not totally understood. I saw a Red Moon in 1982 circa July 6th on a beach in the south of France. I took it to be normal for France. In fact it was a rare event recently repeated here in the UK. I have to say the UK version was hardly different to the Moon on the horizon.
Green??? At 5,500C the surface of the Sun can't show any color other than blindingly white! Those much cooler sunspots at ~4,000C look dark against the rest of the surface, but in isolation they are pretty yellowish-white also.
The "Green Flash" is an optical phenomenon due to refraction of the atmosphere. It is possible to get a "Red Flash" at the bottom of the sun at the same time as the "Green Flash" at the top.
The "Green Flash" is rare. In all the years that I have watched and photographed the sun set over the Gulf of Mexico I have never seen one. There is a restaurant on Captiva Island Florida with that name. There is a detailed explanation of the green flash and its rarity on the wall inside, but nobody there has ever seen one either.
The ham radio guys who bounce signals off the moon know that there is up to 6 db of lower path loss when this happens, usually just as the moon appears on the horizon.
Last edited:
I've never seen one either, but there is a guy on a hill in San Diego who shoots just about every sunset. He has captured them and I've seen the photos. Been years ago, tho, so don't remember his name.
yep, don't get close to "the edge", everything there appears for our bare eyes having massive green/red color fringing.
Apparently Mars suffers from the same dreadful chromatic artifact at the edge, flat Mars..?
Mars Pathfinder - Wikipedia
😎
Green flash - Wikipedia
How to see a green flash | Earth | EarthSky
.. Here is a breathtaking and rare phenomenon called the Green Flash .. - YouTube
Last edited:
I have stood at the edge of the gulf about 10 miles west of you and photographed the sunset several days each year since 2003 except for the two years after hurricane Charlie trashed Sanibel and Captiva. I am usually looking east over Pine Island at sunrise as well. However all of this has been done with a still camera. I will be back in a couple of weeks armed with a new camera which can do video, up to 4K resolution at 30 FPS, or 1080 at 60 FPS......maybe I will catch a green flash.
I was wondering if, according to the flat-earthers, earth is the only flat object in space.
Or, are the sun, moon, pluto etc. flat too?
Or, are the sun, moon, pluto etc. flat too?
The earth is flat and everything spins around it.
In reality the earth is spinning at 1000MPH and revolving around the sun at approx. 80,000MPH. If it didn't we would just be sucked into the sun by gravity. So we are never still. And that doesn't include how fast our galaxy is moving outwards.
In reality the earth is spinning at 1000MPH and revolving around the sun at approx. 80,000MPH. If it didn't we would just be sucked into the sun by gravity. So we are never still. And that doesn't include how fast our galaxy is moving outwards.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/SID/activities/GreenSun.html
This is where I suspect the BBC got it's " The Sun is green " story from. I should have read it for myself. Not least I know a bit about how we get white light from other sources as in white LED's and the old strip lights. Green makes white isn't likely using oxygen nitrogen mix ( and a few others ).
When researching this I was automatically taken to a Flat Earth section of You Tube. Some examples take geat trouble to make a strong arguement. Very like the Evolution people who also are still looking for proof. I make no arguement with evolution except to say it needs more science to make it's next step. I see nothing deceitful in what the evolutionist say. Just a haste to get to the winning post which seems to ignor the usual rigor. Doubtless that is the best way and being honest men and women they will report all they find out.
Here the similarity ends as far as my observation tells me. Instead of a winning post the Flat Earth people are running away from the truth or an honest story based on what we know. Weidly it all feels similar on both sides. Myself, I only trust what DNA tells us as it can be tested. Certainly some will cheat and will be found out. Evolution regardless of your point of view is a very helpful scructure to hang ones ideas from. Neither side should doubt it happened. How it happened I suspect will be harder to find. From either point of view a spark of creation was required. If you read some of the Flat Earth stuff it is Fake News. I came into this thinking it is a joke. It's a joke I don't like.
Have you ever asked yourself " Can the Sun be real "? Even knowing how it works causes me doubt. The massive and wasteful conversion of mass into energy that is eternal meausred by the next million years that I doubt humans will see. It is the least wasteful as I am sure will be said, it still sends out far more than we need.
One Flat Earth speculation is that Gravity doesn't exist and Telsa said so. I bet he didn't. He might have said it is little understood.
If I was to talk to a Flat Earth person I would say. I only need see a drop of water to know what I need to now, even the distortion we see due to the lack of similarity with space helps. To cause it to be flat is harder. To the best of my observation even inventors respect the rules they enact. Their world has foolish principles, square wheels that run better than round ones. The worst thing is many want to believe.
This is where I suspect the BBC got it's " The Sun is green " story from. I should have read it for myself. Not least I know a bit about how we get white light from other sources as in white LED's and the old strip lights. Green makes white isn't likely using oxygen nitrogen mix ( and a few others ).
When researching this I was automatically taken to a Flat Earth section of You Tube. Some examples take geat trouble to make a strong arguement. Very like the Evolution people who also are still looking for proof. I make no arguement with evolution except to say it needs more science to make it's next step. I see nothing deceitful in what the evolutionist say. Just a haste to get to the winning post which seems to ignor the usual rigor. Doubtless that is the best way and being honest men and women they will report all they find out.
Here the similarity ends as far as my observation tells me. Instead of a winning post the Flat Earth people are running away from the truth or an honest story based on what we know. Weidly it all feels similar on both sides. Myself, I only trust what DNA tells us as it can be tested. Certainly some will cheat and will be found out. Evolution regardless of your point of view is a very helpful scructure to hang ones ideas from. Neither side should doubt it happened. How it happened I suspect will be harder to find. From either point of view a spark of creation was required. If you read some of the Flat Earth stuff it is Fake News. I came into this thinking it is a joke. It's a joke I don't like.
Have you ever asked yourself " Can the Sun be real "? Even knowing how it works causes me doubt. The massive and wasteful conversion of mass into energy that is eternal meausred by the next million years that I doubt humans will see. It is the least wasteful as I am sure will be said, it still sends out far more than we need.
One Flat Earth speculation is that Gravity doesn't exist and Telsa said so. I bet he didn't. He might have said it is little understood.
If I was to talk to a Flat Earth person I would say. I only need see a drop of water to know what I need to now, even the distortion we see due to the lack of similarity with space helps. To cause it to be flat is harder. To the best of my observation even inventors respect the rules they enact. Their world has foolish principles, square wheels that run better than round ones. The worst thing is many want to believe.
Real planet or not I am glad I lived long enough to see it. If someone really put their minds to it we could travel there in days before 2156. I think I would stay alive for that. Even though very cold we should be able to stay there for a while. Whilst light speed is hard, fast isn't. My mum started her journey to life about 2 months before Pluto was finally discovered. I think that as Pluto is not a moon of something that makes it a small planet and that's all there is to be said. It has a moon close to it's size and a few other bits of rock as neighbours.
That one is very interesting example Scott, 15 years ago Pluto was a planet and now is`t not, I guess you believed that "scientific truth" both times?
Planet is an astronomical classification like moon, star, asteroid, comet, nebula, galaxy, cluster, supercluster, etc. and its definition and what meets the classification criteria are the proper territory of astronomers. Expecting that new knowledge will not revise past classifications is not consistent with the scientific process.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.