Pinned Tweet
You are confused, alan. The TS & CS are two completely different coordinate frames and don't depend on each other in the least.
You don't need to merge them, you don't need 60nm/°, and neither one of them are "conceptual spheres (wtf is that?)". They stand alone as separate & independent coordinate frames — TS for lat/long on Earth, CS for the position of stars.
I can see how someone who didn't specialize in math could be confused by the coordinate transformations. In order to relate lat/long to ra/dec, the angles between the axes of the frames are needed, so that might look like "merging" to you, but the TS & CS do not depend on each other. They stand alone and independent as two different, well defined on their own with no dependency on the other, coordinate frames.
They can be related to each other, just as any coordinate system can be mapped into another.
And you say "fictitious positions of stars"??? wtf is that horseshit? There's nothing fictitious about stellar positions. We have the precision of bright stars down to microarcseconds and the rest to sub-milliarcsecond which includes aberration, parallax, and proper motion.
➡️The "fictitious observer" is your red herring.
➡️CS & TS are independent of one another.
➡️A coordinate transformation is required to relate positions in one frame to the other.
.
🌔 WHAT I KNOW ABOUT 🌕
THE 🌖 MOON
—— (a little tale by flat earth)
Nothing.
The best part of the story?
WE'RE JUST BEGINNING
TO UNDERSTAND 🤣🤣
Funny thing about you, @thatguym77, is there is nothing you can explain simply.
🔵 Your sunsets are confusing; messes of videos, lasers, hammocks, and bottles — I can explain sunsets in 14 words.
🔵You have no facts supporting that "lights in the sky" are unknowable — spectroscopy trivially identifies their composition.
🔵 gravity controls density sorting — yet your feeble attempts reference not one hypothesis, testable proposal, or repeatable observation
🔵 pressure, without a container, is measured in every star (including the Sun) in the sky
🔵 Venus's size & phase changes demonstrate heliocentrism for anyone with open eyes — you say … nothing
🔵 eclipses also demonstrate heliocentrism (for any who are awake) — your leader @did8hurtu posts "Eclipses explained" with videos talking about "snakes eating the Sun & Moon".
🔵 @FEManOfStone claims to have analytically solved the Earth-Moon-Sun 3-body gravitational problem — that's completely fucking batshit unhinged crazy
flerfism is a mental disorder brought about by religious idolatry.
cc: @ken_caudle
Satellites exist. Anyone can understand this if they know how to find where two lines intersect.
Can any flerf figure out where these two lines
f(x) = 5x + 10
and
g(x) = x
intersect?
That's all that's required to find ISS altitude (it's a tiny bit more complicated in 3D, but the concept is just as easy) of 250 miles high.
Hap Rho retweeted
Here are what real theodolite measurements show: xitter.cf/Roohyfnol/status/21076…
Simply taking occlusion timing and turning off refraction isn't empirical.
.... and:
youtube.com/watch?v=4bOUNmR2…
Read the replies and see how @ThatGuyM77 destroyed flat earth today trying to get away from his 23Oct post.
cc: @ken_caudle xitter.cf/ThatGuyM77/status/2114…
Since the celestial theodolite 'experiment' came to nought, I suggest flat earthers try Guglielmini’s experiments.
xitter.cf/haprho/status/20825030…
#CelTheo #CelestialTheodolite #AetherCos #flatearth
More observable reality ignored by flat-Earthers.
Any flerfs' comments welcome
———————
**Guglielmini’s 1791 experiments** were among the earliest systematic attempts to demonstrate Earth’s diurnal (daily) rotation through the eastward deflection of freely falling bodies.
### Historical context
Giovanni Battista (Giambattista) Guglielmini (c. 1760–1817), a Bolognese mathematician, physicist, and abbé, designed the tests to provide direct experimental evidence of Earth’s west-to-east rotation. The idea traced back to suggestions by Galileo and especially Isaac Newton (in his 1679 correspondence with Robert Hooke). Guglielmini first outlined the concept theoretically in his 1789 pamphlet *Riflessioni sopra un nuovo esperimento in prova del diurno moto della terra*. After preliminary trials (including at the Specola tower), he conducted the decisive series inside Bologna’s Torre degli Asinelli in 1791 and published the results in 1792 as *De diurno Terrae-motu experimentis physico-mathematicis confirmato opusculum* (which received an imprimatur from the local Holy Office).
### Experimental setup
The Asinelli Tower stands nearly 98 m tall overall. Guglielmini used a free-fall height of approximately 78.3 m (241 Paris feet). He
. 📚 A MASTER CLASS 📚
in flatearth timeline
debating techniques
14 words (pink) destroy flat earth.
So these are the FE “leaders” the rest of the flerfs appeal to as their authorities.
Faced with a clear, 14-word globe proof, their entire response is pure, fear-driven terror (yellow).
This is the best & brightest flerfs have.
Hap Rho retweeted
If you let go of antimatter, does it fall?
In 2023, Jeffery Hangst and the ALPHA team at CERN held small groups of about a hundred anti-atoms in a tall magnetic bottle, slowly turned down the magnets at both ends over 20 seconds, and counted where they annihilated.
Roughly four out of five came out the bottom. Antimatter falls, with an acceleration consistent with ordinary gravity, ruling out the old idea that it might fall up.
.
ABERRATION
proves 30km/s
... and flat earthers keep failing to produce any *facts* that say otherwise.
After Bradley’s aberration results, virtually all of the tens of millions of scientists who have lived since 1728¹ believe stellar aberration is a direct (like a calibrated speedometer) measurement of Earth's orbital velocity around its G2V star.
Here's your handy guide to understanding aberration in eight simple steps 😀
1️⃣ stellar aberration is the same as running through raindrops and figuring out your running speed based on the *slanting* of the raindrops
2️⃣ each star has a unique motion *different* from EVERY OTHER star in the sky
3️⃣ aberration is different at spacecraft locations (Gaia, Hipparcos, Webb, and deep space) conforming to Bradley's velocity explanation² rather than the spinning 'dome' hand-waving fe nuh-uh hopefulness bs
4️⃣ Diurnal abberation is observed to change throughout the day (and location) – again explained by Earth's velocity, not some magic spinning 'dome'
5️⃣ Gaia used Bradley's equations trillions (10⁹) of times on billions of different stars, 100% corroborating Bradley
6️⃣ Airy & Michelson-Morley both agreed with Bradley and looked for evidence of æther using Eath's motion relative to a stationary aether (they considered all sorts of aether theories besides stationary — all failed)
7️⃣ After Bradley’s 1728 aberration results, Earth’s orbit around the Sun became settled fundamental physics among virtually all scientists, including Airy, Eddington, Michelson, Morley, Einstein, Lorentz, Fresnel, Arago, Fizeau, Stokes, Poincaré, Maxwell, Young, Bessel, Delambre, and the whole broad community of astronomers and physicists of the period. Earth's motion was never seriously doubted after 1728. flat earthers lie about this ALL THE f*ing TIME
8️⃣ the only alternative flat has proposed traces out aberration ellipses daily, not yearly.
———
¹ the year Bradley got a direct measurement of 30km/s for Earth's orbital velocity
² cseligman.com/text/history/b…
::
𝐌𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐧 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫. 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐩𝐮𝐬𝐡 𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐧 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫. 𝐁𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭.
Anything with mass tugs on other things that have mass. This is gravity. It’s why a ball falls when you drop it, why you stay on the ground, and why the Moon goes around Earth. The more mass something has, and the closer it is, the stronger the pull.
Anything with electric charge also pushes or pulls on other charges. Same charges push away from each other. Opposite charges pull toward each other. This is why static electricity makes your hair stick out and why magnets can attract or repel.
Scientists check both ideas the same simple way: place two objects near each other and carefully measure whether they move toward each other, away from each other, or stay still. The experiments for mass and for charge follow the same basic steps—control the distances, measure the forces, and repeat under different conditions. The results match what the laws of gravity and electromagnetism predict every time.
No careful, repeated experiment has ever shown that masses stop attracting each other or that charges stop interacting this way.
Claims that ignore these everyday, measured effects (including some flat-earth ideas) have not produced evidence that overturns them.
— written by AI
In current flat-earth models, the Sun never drops below an altitude of 3,000 miles.
Because of the direct one-to-one correspondence between celestial coordinates (right ascension / declination) and geographic coordinates (latitude / longitude), an observer watching a sunset can determine that the subsolar point—the location on Earth directly beneath the Sun—is approximately 6,250 miles away.
A right triangle with an altitude of 3,000 miles and a ground distance of 6,250 miles yields a solar elevation angle of roughly 26°.
That places the Sun about 50 solar diameters above the geometric horizon.
No flat-Earth advocate has yet explained how, on a flat geometric plane, the Sun can ever appear anywhere near the horizon.
Hap Rho retweeted
Why does the Haversine formula work to calculate distances between known points on Earth? Why are the distances accurate?
If the earth were planar, spherical geometry wouldn't give you accurate distances. Planar geometry would.
But the Haversine calculations of distances works (i.e. "is correct") while Cartesian calculations are wrong.
Why is that?
Hap Rho retweeted
This is what the sky would look like on a flat Earth. Does it match what you see?
Their own model: a local sun and moon, each circling above its own latitude, which shifts through the year. Anyone can look up where they are on any date.
We stand on their map at the Gold Coast, then Hollywood, looking north - watch.
Midnight comes and the sun is still in the sky. The "full moon" turns into a crescent and shows you its far side. Nothing ever sets.
The flat Earth model does not match reality. The sun and moon would be visible to everyone, everywhere, all the time. Flat earth debunks itself.