The “Axis of Evil” in Astrophysics

The European Space Agency’s image illustrating two things that seem to falsify the cosmological principle. (click for credit)

A couple of days ago, I had a fun conversation with a student regarding astrophysics. He seemed very well-informed on the subject, so I begin using some physics “slang” to help move the conversation along. The student picked up on most of the references, but then we began discussing the cosmological principle, which is an assumption upon which the Big Bang model (and many other models of the universe) depends. It essentially states:

Viewed on a large enough scale, the properties of the universe are the same no matter where you are

The student was aware that most observations have never supported the cosmological principle, but he brought up the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), which he seemed to think supports it. I countered by mentioning the “Axis of Evil,” and he seemed to think I was joking. I was surprised that he didn’t get the reference, so I explained it to him. He was shocked that he hadn’t heard of it before, so he suggested that I write a blog post about it.

To understand the “Axis of Evil,” you first have to understand the CMB. When astrophysicists were working on the Big Bang model of the universe, which essentially says that the universe “exploded” into being from nothing, they realized that such an “explosion” would leave behind a signature: microwaves that appear from everywhere in the universe. The predicted details of these microwaves varied from paper to paper, but regardless of the details, everyone agreed that if the Big Bang happened, there should be a “background” of microwaves found everywhere in the universe. That’s what became known as the CMB.

More than 15 years after the first prediction of the CMB, its existence was confirmed by Dr. Arno Penzias and Dr. Robert Woodrow Wilson, who shared the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics as a result. Since the real test of a scientific theory is whether or not it can make predictions which are later confirmed by the data, the existence of the CMB helped to solidify the Big Bang Theory as the commonly-accepted scientific model of the universe.

While the existence of the CMB (if the “C” really belongs there) is definitely a confirmation of the Big Bang theory, there are also data that seem to contradict the theory. As mentioned above, for example, the cosmological principle is one of the fundamental assumptions used in the theory, but observations have always argued strongly against that principle. The CMB is no exception.

Why does the CMB argue against the cosmological principle? Remember what the principle says. The universe should look the same everywhere, at least when we get to a large enough scale. Well, look at the image at the top of this post, which (ignoring the white curve and circle for a moment) is one way to represent the CMB in the observable universe (obviously a very large scale!). The red areas are parts of the universe in which the CMB is more energetic (on average), and the blue areas are parts of the universe where the CMB is less energetic (on average). If the cosmological principle were correct, the red and blue should be evenly distributed throughout the observable universe. Even the most untrained eye can see that they are not.

In fact, there are at least two aspects of the image that seem to falsify the cosmological principle. First, the circled part of the image is huge, and it represents a part of the universe whose microwaves are ridiculously low in energy. It is generally referred to as the “CMB cold spot.” Worse yet, there is a universal trend in the microwave energy. The parts of the universe that are below the white curve in the image above have, on average, more energetic microwaves, while the parts of the universe above the curve have less energetic microwaves. That curve is called the “Axis of Evil,” and the cosmological principle says that shouldn’t exist.

Now, of course, astrophysicists who are committed to the Big Bang model (or just the cosmological principle) aren’t willing to give up their precious preconceptions just because of some annoying data, so there are several attempts to “explain around” the CMB. Some think it is simply an anomaly related to the statistical analysis that is necessary to produce the image in the first place. Some think that the cold spot is a remnant of where another universe collided with ours. However, the fact remains that if the image above is an accurate representation of cosmic microwaves, the cosmological principle is simply wrong.

There is one other big problem with the “Axis of Evil,” and it makes me doubt that the “C” should be in CMB. It turns out that the axis seems to be aligned with the very plane in which the planets of our solar system orbit the sun. There is absolutely no reason I can fathom that would explain why a universal phenomenon is linked to our solar system. However, I can image several reasons why something that is related to our solar system is linked to it. In other words, the Cosmic Background Radiation may not be cosmic.

Think about it. We are embedded in our solar system. When we see microwaves coming from all parts of the visible universe, they might just be coming from all parts of our solar system, or all parts of our galaxy. The very fact that the Axis of Evil is aligned with our orbit around the sun argues that it is related to our solar system, not the universe as a whole. Of course, if the CMB is not really cosmic, then it has no value as evidence for the Big Bang. Even if the CMB is cosmic, it clearly argues against the cosmological principle.

27 Comments

  1. Derrick says:

    It’s interesting that only 2 lines are used. I can see at least 2 other very clear distinct zones. A much larger triangular-ish cold spot loop could easily be drawn just above and to the right of existing smaller cold spot. And another line could be drawn above and more or less parallel to the existing axis of evil line.

    1. Jay Wile says:

      The curve delineates a universal trend (lower energies above, higher below). The circle encloses a region that strongly deviates from the others. I agree that there are lots of areas that violate the cosmological principle. The curve and circle are just the most flagrant violations.

  2. George Ebejer says:

    Thank you very much for this interesting information.

  3. John Berea says:

    One way to test whether the microwave background radiation is universal or local is to see whether massive galaxies gravitationally distort its image or whether light from it is shadowed by large galaxies. We see neither:

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm

    I asked Luke Barnes about this a couple years ago and he confirmed they’re still unsolved problems in astronomy. One thing I wonder is if we’re able to see parallax shifts in the MBR.

    1. Jay Wile says:

      There has been a plausible explanation for the apparent lack of shadowing. Essentially, the authors say it is masked by the radio emissions of the clusters themselves. This doesn’t demonstrate that the CMB is cosmic, but it at least explains why the shadowing is hard to find if the CMB is cosmic.

  4. John D says:

    I know you aren’t really into the plasma universe idea but I thought you might still find these ideas (based on the thinking of Hannes Alfven) interesting..

    “In the eyes of plasma cosmology, celestial objects’ redshift is proportional to current density and electrical stress. In other words, if an object has a very high redshift, it is not because it is very far away, but rather because it is in the early stage of a formation in a cosmic plasma discharge. Faintness and high redshift signify youthfulness not distance. If astronomers could simply recognize the undeniable existence of electric currents in space (as Alfvén implored them to), then the picture of space would be forever altered.

    Another problem for Big Bang cosmology has been the appearance of “clumps” and “voids” in the Cosmos. Critics argued that raw subatomic — or preatomic — material expanding outward at nearly the speed of light would produce an evenly distributed cloud with no force present to generate cosmic structure. But in fact, we observe cosmic structure everywhere we look, and the distribution of matter is profoundly uneven. Both the concentrations of matter, and the “voids” between these concentrations, falsify the inherent, logical “predictions” of the original theory.

    The force of gravity is weak and takes time to move things around. The elapsed time since the conjectured Big Bang sets a limit on how big any structure can be. Structures exceeding that limit are, by the cosmologists’ own admission, impossible. But astronomers have observed “huge voids” when mapping the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) – areas of space where the “temperature” of the CMB is interpreted as lower than that of the surrounding region. But in a plasma universe, the appearance of a vast and remote “void” may be entirely illusory. It is now evident that astronomers imagine they are seeing things at the far edges of the visible Universe that are actually occurring in our own cosmic neighborhood, the Milky Way galaxy. The research of radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur has demonstrated that the “cosmic microwave background” shown by WMAP is foreground microwave fog. So the “vision” of observers using WMAP is clouded by the local activity of electric current filaments in the Milky Way.”

    Alfven was highly critical of attempts to reconcile scripture with science but his ideas were definitely interesting and in some cases revolutionary. I personally think an electric universe works very nicely with the idea that “God is Light”.

    More on him here – http://plasmauniverse.info/people/alfven.html

  5. Ken says:

    Can cosmologist really piece together how the universe was formed or how it started? I may have asked you before and forgotten your answer, but what do you think of S.U.M. (Scriptural Universe Model)? Just having the Big Bang Theory as the only model seems to go against sciences (to me). From my understanding, with the Big Bang, most of the universe is empty. But the Plasma theory paints a different picture. I’m not sure if you approve of links. Please, remove it if you don’t. I feel that the SUM theory may not be testable perhaps like the Big Bang Theory so that’s where some problems might occur.

    http://www.creationevidence.org/biblical/scriptural_universe_model.php

    1. Jay Wile says:

      There are lots of models of the universe besides the Big Bang. There are the cosmologies of creationists Humphreys and Hartnett. There is the plasma universe, the steady-state universe, and the static universe. None of those are as popular as the Big Bang, but they are being worked on. All of those cosmologies (include the Big Bang) make testable predictions, so they are within the realm of science. As you indicate, SUM doesn’t seem to make any testable predictions. Thus, it is an interesting view, but I don’t put it in the realm of science.

  6. Erik Tucker says:

    I remember reading somewhere that the CMB is radiating from an apparent distance of 43billion light years. It was in an article written by an evolutionary cosmologist explaining why the speed of light probably isn’t constant and may have been much faster in the past. My question is can’t we measure the apparent distance to the CMB with redshift? And if so how can it be related to our solar system? And also do the planets obscure the CMB or is the CMB to weak to tell?

    1. Jay Wile says:

      The CMB seems to be coming from everywhere. That’s why it is called background radiation. So there is no “distance” to it. Of course, the idea that it is background is inconsistent with an assymetry aligned with earth’s orbit around the sun. So it might not really be a background. It might be associated with our solar system in some way.

  7. Erick says:

    “The apparent alignment in the cosmic microwave background in one particular direction through space is called ‘evil’ because it undermines our ideas about the standard cosmological model….the Copernican Principle seems to be in jeopardy.”- Astrophysicist, Ashok K. Singal

    “One of the most surprising findings is that the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave radiation temperatures at large angular scales do not match those predicted by the standard [Big Bang] model.”- The European Space Agency, Planck Probe, 2013

    “The data [of Michelson-Morley] were almost unbelievable…There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.”- Physicist, Bernard Jaffe

    “The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.”- Astrophysicist, Yetendra P. Varshni

    “The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect” – Lawrence Krauss, 2006

    1. Jay Wile says:

      I prefer quotes that are referenced, so I can get some idea of the source. The Varshini quote, for example, is from 1976. More recent data show that the argument is incorrect:

      http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/432754

      The Kraus quote is truncated:

      “The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it’s telling us there’s something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there’s something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. And of course as a theorist I’m certainly hoping it’s the latter, because I want theory to be wrong, not right, because if it’s wrong there’s still work left for the rest of us.”

      https://connect.rzim.org/t/is-the-earth-the-center-of-the-universe/4209

  8. Erick says:

    “In astronomy and observational cosmology, The BOOMERanG experiment (Balloon Observations Of Millimetric Extragalactic Radiation ANd Geophysics) was an experiment which measured the cosmic microwave background radiation of a part of the sky during three sub-orbital (high-altitude) balloon flights. It was the first experiment to make large, high-fidelity images of the CMB temperature anisotropies, and is best known for the discovery in 2000 that the geometry of the universe is close to flat,[1] with similar results from the competing MAXIMA experiment. ”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOOMERanG_experiment

    Modern Cosmology Concludes:

    1. Flat universe
    2. Earth at rest
    3. Earth is Geocentric, at the center of the universe.

    “[W]e have[…] certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth.” – Galileo Galilei in letter to Francesco Rinuccini, March 29th, 1641

    “[Redshifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth[…] This hypothesis cannot be disproved” – Edwin Hubble in The Observational Approach to Cosmology

    the Earth-centered system “…is in reality absolutely identical with the system of Copernicus and all computation of the places of the planets are the same for the two systems.”- Astronomer, J. L. E. Dryer

    All of the quotes were plucked from:

    Quotes in Favor of Geocentrism
    http://quotesandreferences.blogspot.com/2016/08/quotes-in-favor-of-geocentrism.html

    and

    Quotes From Famous Scientists On Geocentrism
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Geocentrism/comments/2oz7ye/quotes_from_famous_scientists_on_geocentrism/

    I myself can conclude the earth is at rest by observation. I would have to have faith in a fairy tale to believe I live on a spinning ball traveling an astounding 1.3 million miles per hour (2.1 million km/hr)!

    “A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative.”- Physicist, Henri Poincaré

    How Fast Are You Moving When You Are Sitting Still?

    https://astrosociety.org/edu/publications/tnl/71/howfast.html

    “And how fast is the Milky Way Galaxy moving? The speed turns out to be an astounding 1.3 million miles per hour (2.1 million km/hr)! We are moving roughly in the direction on the sky that is defined by the constellations of Leo and Virgo.”

    The simplest answer is usually the correct one, flat and geocentric universe is so much simpler to navigate and understand.

    “Occam’s razor (also Ockham’s razor or Ocham’s razor; Latin: lex parsimoniae “law of parsimony”) is the problem-solving principle that the simplest solution tends to be the correct one”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

    Ever wonder why there is no South Pole star? Or why does the Moon look the same from Southern hemisphere as it does in Northern Hemisphere??

    If it were a 3D ball it would surely be seen that way from the 2 hemispheres. North Hemisphere seeing the north side of moon, south seeing south side of moon, simple…

    Joshua 10:13
    And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

    1. Jay Wile says:

      That’s not exactly a reference for your quotes, since the pages you reference give no references or incomplete references to the actual quotes. Consider the Hubble quote. I am familiar with it, so I know where to go to get the whole quote. Not surprisingly, it doesn’t support the claim:

      The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance

      So the “condition” he refers to is a possible density distribution in the universe that is not at all suggested by any observational data. Thus, he is simply eliminating a possibility that he didn’t know was inconsistent with the data. We now know that it is inconsistent with the data, so the quote has no relevance to the current view of the structure of the universe.

      You can find the Dyer quote here, and as you can see, he is discussing the Tychonian model, which he later indicates is not consistent with the data. In fact, he says that the Copernican system was the next logical step from the Tychonian system.

      This is the problem with giving quotes. They can be easily taken out of context to say something other than what they mean. The documentary “The Principle” is masterful at that. It quotes famous astrophysicists and astronomers, making it sound like they believed something they didn’t believe.

      Since I don’t have time to debunk every taken-out-of-context quote, I will skip to the only actual evidence you present. You claim:

      The simplest answer is usually the correct one, flat and geocentric universe is so much simpler to navigate and understand

      A geocentric universe is not simpler to navigate and understand. When NASA is flying unmanned spacecrafts to different planets, they don’t use the geocentric model. They use the heliocentric model, because since it is the proper model of the solar system, it makes for the easiest navigation. Look, for example, at the path taken by MESSENGER to get to Mercury. This gave MESSENGER the best path to Mercury for the least amount of fuel. If the solar system were geocentric, the fuel needed to take that path would have made the craft too heavy to leave earth’s gravitational field. It is also very hard to understand a geocentric universe, since the distant stars would have to be traveling faster than the speed of light to make sense of their motion in the night sky. Not only do experiments on earth show that objects with mass cannot travel even at the speed of light (not to mention faster), but also we would not see the stars as points of light if they were moving that fast. We would see them as long blurs.

      You ask why there is no south pole star. There is. It is called Sigma Octantis.

      You ask why the moon looks the same in the Northern and Southern hemispheres. It does not. In the Southern Hemisphere, it is upside-down compared to the Northern Hemisphere, as you would expect from a spherical earth.

      Joshua 10:13 does not support a stationary earth and a moving sun. It is speaking the way any modern physicist would speak. We know that velocity is relative, so in order to define velocity, you must give a point of reference. That’s what Joshua 10:13 does. It says ” the sun stood still in the midst of heaven…” In other words, it stood still in the sky. Thus, it only implies that relative to the sky, the sun moves. That’s absolutely true. The sun moves in the sky because it is at the center of the solar system and the earth rotates on its axis.

      1. Erick says:

        Well the authors of those threads and pages I referenced spent a lot of time collecting the quotes, and that itself makes it a reference

        for me.

        Thank you for completing the quotes, the completion of them doesn’t seem to harm the purpose of the quote. They can’t quote the whole

        lecture or book, gotta cut it somewhere.

        I’ve seen the lecture with Krauss talking about it being flat, his lecture, not the principle documentary.

        A Universe From Nothing’ by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009
        Hosted by: Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

        You can tell he is coming to terms with the Data too.

        What is a “Uni-Verse” anyway? One phrase or one song…

        Whenever I google: “time lapse night sky” all the results are of Polaris.

        [quote]”Polaris, designated Alpha Ursae Minoris (α Ursae Minoris, abbreviated Alpha UMi, α UMi), commonly the North Star or Pole Star, is

        the brightest star in the constellation of Ursa Minor. It is very close to the north celestial pole, making it the current northern pole

        star.”[/quote]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ursa_Minor_IAU.svg

        [quote]”The south celestial pole is visible only from the Southern Hemisphere. It lies in the dim constellation Octans, the Octant. Sigma

        Octantis is identified as the south pole star, over a degree away from the pole, but with a magnitude of 5.5 it is barely visible on a

        clear night.”[/quote]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_pole

        If it’s not visible with the naked eye then its a bad star to navigate with. How can that be considered a south pole star?

        The article you linked about the moon didnt have any pictures of it to compare.

        The moon, lets google: “Moonrise Australia”, “Moonrise New york” and check how different they are.

        https://www.google.com/search?q=moon+rise+australia

        https://www.google.com/search?q=moon+rise+new+york

        They are eerily the same!!

        Toilets dont flush in opposite direction in Australia, unless by design.

        and what I really meant about the moon and its hemispheres was that if I hold a basketball away from me, and align it to its poles. From my

        top half I will see one side of it. If I had eyes below my waist to my feet, those eyes would see another angle of the basketball.

        We dont get these different angles when looking at the moon. The moon is following laws and rules of a 2d Object.

        When you watch the moon through the night it does rotate, but not to reveal its other side. Just flips upside down when gets to moon

        setting. It never rotates to reveal its other side so observers can feel more comfortable calling it a sphere.

        How many anomalies do you need to make a pancake??

        Tyco Brahe
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe

        [quote]”Although Tycho admired Copernicus and was the first to teach his theory in Denmark, he was unable to reconcile Copernican theory

        with the basic laws of Aristotelian physics, that he considered to be foundational. He was also critical of the observational data that

        Copernicus built his theory on, which he correctly considered to have a high margin of error. Instead, Tycho proposed a “geo-heliocentric”

        system in which the Sun and Moon orbited the Earth, while the other planets orbited the Sun.”[/quote]

        Daniel 4:11
        The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

        Isaiah 5:26
        And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth: and, behold, they shall come with

        speed swiftly:

        Isaiah 11:12
        And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from

        the four corners of the earth.

        Revelation 7:1
        And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind

        should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

        1. Jay Wile says:

          I agree that the collectors of those quotes spent a lot of time gathering them. They then clipped the quotes to make it sound like the people were saying something different from what they actually said. You say that giving you the complete quote doesn’t harm the purpose, but it certainly does. As I showed, Hubble wasn’t saying that the data indicate the earth is at the center of the universe. He was giving a reason to reject a specific density distribution of the universe – one that we know is not supported by the data anyway. Dyer wasn’t saying the earth-centered universe is a good model. He says just the opposite in the very book that is being quoted. Krauss was not saying that either all science is wrong or we are at the center of the universe. He gave you several different explanations, and he even indicated the one he preferred, which is not the one you want. And he is definitely not trying to come to terms with the data. He is saying that the “axis of evil” is most likely the result of microwave radiation behaving differently on large scale than on short scales, and that excited him.

          Yes, Polaris is often referred to because it is easy to see. If you are making a video, it is best to use a star that is easy to see. However, if you have binoculars, you can also see Sigma Octantis, and you can navigate by it if you want. It doesn’t matter that it can’t be seen with the naked eye. It can be seen with binoculars, and that is enough to use it to navigate. It behaves exactly like Polaris for the Southern Hemisphere. That’s why it is properly called the south pole star.

          The very links you gave me show quite clearly that the moon is upside down in the Northern Hemisphere relative to the Southern Hemisphere. Go here for example:

          https://www.flickr.com/photos/yury-prokopenko/3262160575

          and then here:

          https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-full-moonrise-financial-district-downtown-skyline-manhattan-new-york-12308104.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=51158F74-9BD8-4509-B6D0-C4E98B8996F8&p=37347&n=0&orientation=0&pn=1&searchtype=0&IsFromSearch=1&srch=foo%3dbar%26st%3d0%26pn%3d1%26ps%3d100%26sortby%3d2%26resultview%3dsortbyPopular%26npgs%3d0%26qt%3dfull%2520moonrise%2520financial%2520district%2520downtown%26qt_raw%3dfull%2520moonrise%2520financial%2520district%2520downtown%26lic%3d3%26mr%3d0%26pr%3d0%26ot%3d0%26creative%3d%26ag%3d0%26hc%3d0%26pc%3d%26blackwhite%3d%26cutout%3d%26tbar%3d1%26et%3d0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3d0%26loc%3d0%26imgt%3d0%26dtfr%3d%26dtto%3d%26size%3d0xFF%26archive%3d1%26groupid%3d%26pseudoid%3d%26a%3d%26cdid%3d%26cdsrt%3d%26name%3d%26qn%3d%26apalib%3d%26apalic%3d%26lightbox%3d%26gname%3d%26gtype%3d%26xstx%3d0%26simid%3d%26saveQry%3d%26editorial%3d1%26nu%3d%26t%3d%26edoptin%3d%26customgeoip%3d%26cap%3d1%26cbstore%3d1%26vd%3d0%26lb%3d%26fi%3d2%26edrf%3d%26ispremium%3d1%26flip%3d0

          Both of those came from the search you linked. Notice that the first link (Australia) shows the moon is upside down and backwards compared to the second link (New York). Once again, this is exactly what you would expect from a spherical earth.

          Yes, toilets don’t flush in the opposite direction in different hemispheres, but you wouldn’t expect them to, because the Coriolis effect works over long distances, not short distances. I wrote about that quite some time ago. Also, a commenter put a link in that article that shows if the basin is large enough and very still, it will drain in different directions in different hemispheres, because the large basin is large enough to feel the Coriolis effect.

          The moon doesn’t rotate at night relative to the earth because its rotation is locked in resonance with its orbit. This is very well known and easy to measure. In fact, this article not only explains it, but gives you a photo of the other side of the moon, as taken from a unmanned spacecraft.

          None of the Bible verses you quote indicate the earth is flat. The “four corners of the earth,” for example, refer to the four cardinal directions. If you really think the earth is flat, please read my article on the subject. There are several links that show there is no reason theologically and no reason scientifically to think that the earth is flat. It is amazing to me that people believe something today that was easily refuted in the 3rd century BC!

          I note that you haven’t addressed my concern about stars moving faster than the speed of light. Given that experiments on earth indicate that objects with mass can’t even get to the speed of light, and given the fact that stars wouldn’t look like points of light to us if they are orbiting the earth faster than the speed of light, how can you have an earth-centered universe?

  9. Erick says:

    Hunting for Sigma Octantis and finding people with decent telescopes are having trouble seeing it.

    http://www.astronomyforum.net/astronomy-beginners-forum/137358-any-tricks-finding-sigma-octantis.html

    10-inch LX-200 – Finding Sigma Octantis
    http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=68593

    [quote]”10-inch LX-200 – Finding Sigma Octantis
    Well, the new scope and accessories arrived over the weekend. I must say, I’m glad I didn’t go for the 12-inch, as the 10 is inside my ability to lift, but not by a whole lot.

    One thing that I am having trouble with … in the calibration area, the telescope obviously tries to find the South Celestial Pole, being in the Southern Hemisphere. It asks you to centre on Sigma Octantis, which appears to be the closest star to the SCP.

    My problem is, that Octans is a very unremarkable constellation, and I couldn’t tell Sigma Octantis from any of its sisters.”[/quote]

    ^ This amatuer/beginner astronomer is having trouble seeing sigma Octantis with a $3,500 telescope and he doesn’t close or conclude the thread saying he found it.

    Not the only astronomy thread out there about the topic.

    I was just trying to point that out, its not there for average people. Maybe if we had a vatican telescope we could see it.

    I completely disagree about the moon, it rises with the white rabbit in similar to same positions positions and i think the slight variance is based on time of year taken.. A new york Moon Rise the bunny ears are between 12-2 on a clock. In the Newport image you linked the bunny ears are between 10-12.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rabbit

    “The moon rabbit in folklore is a rabbit that lives on the Moon, based on pareidolia that identifies the markings of the Moon as a rabbit. The folklore originated in China, and then spread to other Asian cultures.”

    Isn’t that interesting the moon is locked? Just so happens we arent ever seeing that other side!! Good thing trustful governments of the new world are doing the right thing, being the right stuff.

    4 Things Scientists Can’t Explain About The Moon
    http://www.awesome-u.org/4-things-scientists-explain-moon/

    “3. It’s Perfectly Placed Between The Earth and The Sun’

    The Moon has 3 474 km in diameter, the sun has an astounding 1.392 million kilometers in diameter.

    There’s no reason why the Moon should be at that precise distance from Earth as to perfectly cover the sun during an eclipse, and yet, it is.”

    “4.Its Rotation Around Earth is Exactly the same as its Rotation Around Itself’

    “That’s why we always see the same side of the Moon, because as it orbits around us, it rotates at that exact same pace. Remarkable as it may be, it’s still yet another major coincidence. I mean, think about it, what are the odds of both those speeds matching exactly? The Earth rotates 365 times per orbit – the Moon does that at a precise 1:1 ratio. Uncanny, to say the least.”

    The Moon: An Unexplained Phenomenon
    https://redice.tv/news/the-moon-an-unexplained-phenomenon

    Irwin Shapiro,
    Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

    “The best possible explanation for the Moon is observational error – the Moon doesn’t exist.’

    “The Moon is bigger than it should be, apparently older than it should be and much lighter in mass than it should be. It occupies an unlikely orbit and is so extraordinary that all existing explanations for its presence are fraught with difficulties are none of them could be considered remotely watertight.”

    Christopher Knight and Alan Bulter
    Book: Who Built the Moon?

    “The Moon has astonishing synchronicity with the Sun. When the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in mid-winter, the Moon is at its highest and brightest, and the reverse occurs in mid-summer. Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at the opposite point at the solstices. What are the chances that the Moon would naturally find an orbit so perfect that it would cover the Sun at an eclipse and appear from Earth to be the same size? What are chances that the alignments would be so perfect at the equinoxes and solstices?”

    It’s good you bring up Flat Earth, the bible verses must have made you think of it.

    The ancient Chinese were long time Flat earthers.

    Tian – Heaven, Sky, God
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tian

    “Tian (?) is one of the oldest Chinese terms for heaven and a key concept in Chinese mythology, philosophy, and religion. During the Shang Dynasty (17–11th centuries BCE), the Chinese referred to their supreme god as Shàngdì (??, “Lord on High”) or Dì (?,”Lord”).”

    “Gaitian shuo (???) “Canopy-Heavens hypothesis” originated from the text Zhoubi Suanjing. The earth is covered by a material tian.”

    How far away are the stars from Earth you mentioned?

    If the sun is so far away, why does it cast a hotspot on the earth as seen in high altitude imagery?

    To see what I am referring to, google: sun hot spot

    https://www.google.com/search?q=sun+hot+spot

    It’s like laser beam over a small area. Almost like when we played with magnifying glasses as kids and made that focal point to burn.

    What if all the stars are less than 1 light year away or one light minute away?

    I have a strange feeling Star distance and dating science is a lot like carbon dating science. Based on bad guesses…

    Jeremiah 31:37
    Thus saith the Lord; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord.

    1. Jay Wile says:

      When it comes to Sigma Octantis, once again the very link you give refutes your thesis. One of the helpful people gave this link which shows quite clearly how to find Sigma Octantis. It doesn’t matter that the person in the forum had a great telescope. If he or she can’t use it properly, the quality of the telescope is irrelevant. The fact is that even a good set of binoculars or a good camera allows you to see it, as demonstrated here, here, and here. So you don’t need a “vatican telescope” to see the star. It is available to average people, if you are willing to actually look.

      You can disagree about the moon all that you want, but the pictures clearly show a huge difference between the view in the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere, and there is no way that the time of year can explain the difference. Here’s an animation of the moon over a full year. If you think the animation is part of an elaborate NASA conspiracy, just watch the moon yourself over a year. You will see that the “rabbit ears” never move more than a couple of hours on the clock. So the moon looks VERY different in different hemispheres, which is what you expect on a spherical earth and absolutely not what you would expect on a flat earth.

      It isn’t surprising that the moon’s rotation and orbit are in resonance. In fact, basics physics equations show how it happens. As the link that I gave you (and you seem to have ignored) says:

      We call this “being locked.” We’re not the only system like this, by the way. Both of Mars’ moons, Phobos and Deimos, always have the same side facing Mars. All of Jupiter’s, Saturn’s, Uranus’, and Neptune’s moons are locked to those planets as well. And in a really weird case, Pluto and its largest moon, Charon, are locked to each other, so that both always show one another the same face:

      But what made this happen? Why do Moons wind up locked to the planets they orbit? Like everything else in the solar system, the culprit is gravity. When you stand up, the Earth pulls down on you. But your feet are just a little bit closer to the center of the Earth than your head. This slight difference means that the Earth pulls with a slightly larger gravitational force on the lower half of you than the upper half; this slight difference is called a tidal force. When something like a Moon is close enough to a planet, these gravitational tidal forces cause the Moon to spin at the same rate that it revolves around the planet. When this happens, we call it tidal locking, and that’s why we always see the same side of the Moon!

      This is true of all the planets’ moons that we know of, and is even true for some asteroids that are bound to each other.

      So this isn’t something science can’t explain. It explains it very well, using fairly simple math. You don’t have to trust “governments” to understand this. All you have to trust is mathematics. Do you not trust mathematics?

      No, the Bible verses didn’t make me think of a flat earth, because the Bible doesn’t indicate a flat earth. Indeed, the early church fathers taught that the earth is a sphere, because a responsible interpretation of Scripture does not lead to a flat earth. Only the very ancient Chinese were flat-earthers. Yes, Gia Tian cosmology in ancient China said the earth is flat and square. However, it was popular only from the 10th to the 6th century AD. It was refuted by observations made by Chinese astronomers. Hun Tian cosmology replaced it in a couple of hundred years, and that used a spherical earth. As the reference I link shows:

      The notion of a spherical Earth is very antique and goes back to the school of Logic (4th century BC).

      Once again, it is astounding to me that people today believe something that ancient observational astronomers knew couldn’t possibly be correct!

      I am glad that you are at least willing to grapple with one of the many scientific issues that make a geocentric universe impossible. You ask “How far away are the stars from Earth you mentioned?” Well, the most accurate method of measuring star distance is with parallax. Unlike carbon dating, it contains no assumptions. It is simply the result of pure mathematics. This can be used to roughly 100 parsecs, or 3×10^15 kilometers.

      However, you don’t need to look at stars to see the impossibility of the geocentric universe. Even Neptune would have to move faster than the speed of light in order to orbit the sun while the sun is orbiting the earth once every 24 hours! Pluto would have to be moving much faster than the speed of light as well. Once again, how do you propose this being possible, given that we clearly see them as planets and not blurs? Also, how do you refute the experiments that demonstrate that objects with mass cannot travel even at the speed of light?

      You ask, “What if all the stars are less than 1 light year away or one light minute away?” They cannot be. We can measure the mass of lots of different stars based on how they orbit other stars (in a multiple-star system). We can analyze their chemical makeup using the wavelengths of light that are emitted. As a result, we know the size of an enormous number of stars. If just the stars we know the size of were only 1 light year away, the night sky would be a blanket of white!

      The “hot spots” to which you refer are a common optical phenomena caused by light passing through an obstruction (like clouds). They cannot be the result of the sun being close to the earth. Look at the second picture on that link, which is taken from Norway. It shows a “hot spot,” but the sun is not directly over that spot, because the sun is never that high in the sky in Norway! The same author has a more detailed discussion of how these “hot spots” actually refute a flat earth. Since I suspect you will ignore the links, let me summarize what he is saying:

      1) These “hot spots” only appear at certain times, and only when there are obstructions.

      2) When you can see the light beams making the “hot spot” (like you see in that Norway image you will probably ignore) They are traveling at an angle that indicate they are not coming directly from the sun. Thus, they are not formed the way flat-earthers claim.

      3) Flat earth theory states that during a North American summer (the time of year is irrelevant because if it were winter, the sun is even further away from Scotland), sunbeams are hitting the earth at a 90 degree angle on the Tropic of Cancer because the sun is directly overhead. They claim that sunbeams must ALSO be hitting the earth at a 90 degree angle 2300 miles away at the same time. Therefore, according to their OWN THEORY, the sun must be at least 2300 miles across to have the sun be directly overhead in both northern Scotland and the Tropic of Cancer at the same time.

      Once again, your Bible verse has nothing to do with a flat earth. The foundations of the earth are, indeed, beneath the ground. They are the mantle and core of the earth.

      1. Erick says:

        *Typo corrected reply

        What I am noticing is dishonesty in astronomy.

        Example, the article you linked about the moon being upside down* in southern Hemisphere is a complete lie from cornell.edu. No pictures to

        compare and when we found pictures to compare the moon was not upside down at moonrise, but a few degrees difference.

        Moon article in question:
        http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/disclaimer/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/135-does-the-moon-look-different-in-the-

        northern-and-southern-hemispheres-beginner

        ” In short, the moon looks upside down in the southern hemisphere (or in your case the moon would look upside down in the northern

        hemisphere). I noticed exactly the same thing on my first trip to southern hemisphere.”

        Why do dishonest astronomy articles exist, especially by top academic institutions?? That web page is most likely ran by a cornell

        academic. What if the whole website is disinfo?? Do you continue to believe a liar once you catch them in one lie??

        Next example:
        http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/our-solar-system/the-earth

        ^ Cornell was able to include 3 pictures in this disinfo article.

        This should have been a discovery between you and I for finding this disinfo and as christians we should be calling it out because we know

        the truth will set us free!!

        The animation linked is a really good one. It is really hard to portray scientific information accurately and the animator did a good job

        conveying that information with his animation and models. I really appreciate it. I have worked with that same or similar moon map in 3d

        rendering for hobby and professional purposes and really appreciate it, that wasn’t easy. The lighting especially. When the animator

        creates stuff like that he notices quirks in reality because he has to simulate reality. When the animator finished that project he may

        have had more questions about the nature of the moon. Imagine lighting that project, the behavior that was given to the light. It’s almost

        a trick. Would love to see the source file for that. To see if the light was animated and/or the moon was. The tilt could be camera

        animation/behavior.

        I do notice that, the moon rises at a slightly different angle depending on time of year, thats why I mentioned it may account for the

        variance we seen in the moonrise pictures that surely didnt depict the moon rabbit being upside down for southern hemisphere like the

        cornell disinfo page stated.

        Pluto vanished. Sometimes stars do that. Star Sabbaticals!!

        https://www.wired.com/2015/06/difficult-see-pluto/

        They seen Pluto in 1930, but can’t find it today with our tech. Beautiful “photos” from Gov of it, Too bad they didnt grab a shot of earth

        like that…

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Knoll

        “John Knoll (born October 6, 1962) is an American visual effects supervisor and chief creative officer (CCO) at Industrial Light & Magic

        (ILM).[1] One of the original creators of Adobe Photoshop (along with his brother, Thomas Knoll), he has also worked as visual effects

        supervisor on the Star Wars prequels and the 1997 special editions of the original trilogy. ”

        Why is NASA Bringing in Lucasfilm Movie Effects Master John Knoll for a Press Conference Tomorrow?
        https://pjmedia.com/blog/why-is-nasa-bringing-in-lucasfilm-movie-effects-master-john-knoll-for-a-press-conference-tomorrow/

        “A representative from Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), a division of Lucasfilm Ltd., will join a panel of scientists to discuss the

        discovery. ”

        Genesis 1:14
        And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for

        seasons, and for days, and years:

        Exodus 4:8
        And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice

        of the latter sign.

        Matthew 24:29
        Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall

        from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

        Mark 13:25
        And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

        Luke 21:7
        And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

        Luke 21:11
        And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from

        heaven.

        Luke 21:25
        And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea

        and the waves roaring;

        Revelation 6:13
        And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

        Revelation 8:10
        And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the

        rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;

        If Stars can fall from heaven to earth, they can’t be light years away. They would have to be a lot closer.

        Distance to the Sun
        https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

        “Modern Mechanics describes how on a Flat Earth the sun can be computed to 3,000 miles via triangulation, whereas on a globe earth those

        same angles can calculate the sun to nearly 93 million miles away — ”

        If they are wrong about the Distance of the sun or intentionally lying about it like we caught cornell lying about the moon then the stars

        aren’t too far off either.

        And how do we accurately measure a different stars distance from earth with 2 sticks in the ground?? Can the guy with the $3,500 telescope

        measure it??

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax

        “Stellar parallax is so small (as to be unobservable until the 19th century) that its apparent absence was used as a scientific argument

        against heliocentrism during the early modern age. It is clear from Euclid’s geometry that the effect would be undetectable if the stars

        were far enough away, but for various reasons such gigantic distances involved seemed entirely implausible: it was one of Tycho Brahe’s

        principal objections to Copernican heliocentrism that in order for it to be compatible with the lack of observable stellar parallax, there

        would have to be an enormous and unlikely void between the orbit of Saturn and the eighth sphere (the fixed stars).”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby_lenses

        “The Visby lenses provide evidence that sophisticated lens-making techniques were being used by craftsmen over 1,000 years ago, at a time

        when researchers had only just begun to explore the laws of refraction”

        In regards to the 4 corners meaning four Cardinal directions, why didnt they just say that instead, the hebrew word for “direction” must

        have been used in the Torah:

        Numbers 21:18
        The princes digged the well, the nobles of the people digged it, by the direction of the lawgiver, with their staves. And from the

        wilderness they went to Mattanah:

        Job 37:3
        He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth.

        Proverbs 3:5-6
        Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy

        paths.

        Really, believing the story of Columbus is akin to believing the 9/11 official story. So many holes in the Columbus story. At a certain

        point you have to realize a portion of our history is being simulated. After Jesus the world goes into a long period of silence. All of our

        previous knowledge collected was gone, destroyed.

        They go from building Giant pyramids to building straw huts. Devolving.

        As a domesticated animal, we need to look at our writing, language and morality coming from and being installed by a master species over

        us. Like we have taught dogs Right from Wrong and our English words.

        You know the aboriginees of Australia were there so long and had so many oral languages but not one written language?? Why??

        We have stories from Sumeria that the gods came and taught writing, agriculture and civilization to the people, domesticating them.

        The purpose of a garden is to Domesticate a species for a purpose, usually food.

        Maybe its best you believe the official story, it’s less stress on the animal…

        Proverbs 30:4
        Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath

        established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?

        John 3

        12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

        13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

        1. Jay Wile says:

          You should really stop leveling false accusations, Erick. That’s not a Christian thing to do. Neither of those Cornell sites lies in any way. The moon does appear upside-down in the Southern Hemisphere as compared to the Northern Hemisphere. Basic geometry tells you that to see the full effect, you have to be on corresponding points of each hemisphere, and there are many pictures that show that quite clearly:

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2017/09/09/astroquizzical-upside-down-moon/#5ecab6ab1231

          https://thevlm.org/how-to-have-an-astronomical-vacation/

          https://movin2newzealand.wordpress.com/2015/05/10/upside-down-world/

          The pictures I showed came from your own search, which is why I showed them.

          Once again, then, the moon appears exactly as you would expect if the earth is a sphere, and its appearance is completely inconsistent with the earth being flat. This is one of the many observations that made even ancient people realize that the earth is a sphere.

          The second link from Cornell has no lies in it, either. I disagree with its statements about the age of the earth, but those aren’t lies. They are legitimate interpretations of the data. I think those interpretations are wrong, but they are not lies.

          I am not sure why you think Pluto disappeared. It did not. Indeed, the very link you give refutes that idea. It tells you why Pluto is difficult to see from earth, but not impossible. In fact, this website tells you how to find it with a 10-inch telescope and explains why it is harder to see these days than it was in 30 years ago.

          https://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/lets-find-pluto/

          You ask why a member of ILM was at a NASA briefing. The man himself explains why:

          “Working in film, we often are tasked with creating something never before seen,” said visual effects supervisor John Knoll of Industrial Light & Magic, a division of Lucasfilm Ltd., in San Francisco. “However, more often than not, scientific discoveries prove to be more spectacular than anything we dare imagine. There is no doubt these discoveries influence and inspire storytellers. Their very existence serves as cause to dream bigger and open our minds to new possibilities beyond what we think we ‘know.'”

          https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/news/kepler-16b.html

          So he was there to get inspiration for science fiction. As a science fiction fan, I can tell you that the best science fiction has been inspired by actual science.

          Once again, responsible theology never leads to any kind of flat earth. That’s why the early church fathers taught a spherical earth. The Greek word for “star” used in Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:25, etc. can refer to meteors burning up in the atmosphere. See, for example,

          Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford Press, 1968, p. 261.

          Indeed, we even call them “falling stars.” Thus, these verses don’t even imply that the stars that we identify today are close to earth.

          “They” aren’t wrong about the distance to the sun, and once again, you are simply leveling false charges when you suggest that astronomers are lying. As early as 1761, astronomers used the transit of Venus to determine the distance to the sun. Nowadays, we can actually bounce radio waves off of Venus and measure precisely how far away Venus is. After that, simple geometry tells us the distance to the sun. You can learn more from these two links:

          https://www.universetoday.com/117843/how-did-we-find-the-distance-to-the-sun/

          https://www.airspacemag.com/space/To-Venus-180967714/

          And once again, the very link you give refutes your thesis. Yes, parallax used to be difficult to measure. Now it is easy to measure. As your Wikipedia link says:

          Being very difficult to measure, only about 60 stellar parallaxes had been obtained by the end of the 19th century, mostly by use of the filar micrometer. Astrographs using astronomical photographic plates sped the process in the early 20th century. Automated plate-measuring machines and more sophisticated computer technology of the 1960s allowed more efficient compilation of star catalogues. In the 1980s, charge-coupled devices (CCDs) replaced photographic plates and reduced optical uncertainties to one milliarcsecond.

          Stellar parallax remains the standard for calibrating other measurement methods (see Cosmic distance ladder). Accurate calculations of distance based on stellar parallax require a measurement of the distance from Earth to the Sun, now known to exquisite accuracy based on radar reflection off the surfaces of planets.

          You ask why the Bible doesn’t refer to the cardinal directions as directions? Because we are reading a translation that was made from another language. Go back to the original language, and you see that there is not even a hint of a flat earth:

          The word translated “corners,” as in the phrase above, is the Hebrew word, KANAPH. Kanaph is translated in a variety of ways. However, it generally means extremity. It is translated “borders” in Numbers 15:38. In Ezekiel 7:2 it is translated “four corners” and again in Isaiah 11:12 “four corners.” Job 37:3 and 38:13 as “ends.”…Regardless of the various ways kanaph is translated, it makes reference to EXTREMITIES…There are many ways in which God the Holy Spirit could have said corner. Any of the following Hebrew words could have been used:

          Pinoh is used in reference to the cornerstone.

          Paioh means “a geometric corner”

          Ziovyoh means “right angle” or “corner”

          Krnouth refers to a projecting corner.

          Paamouth – If the Lord wanted to convey the idea of a square, four-cornered Earth, the Hebrew word paamouth could have been used. Paamouth means square.

          Instead, the Holy Spirit selected the word kanaph, conveying the idea of extremity.

          https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c017.html

          Once again, responsible theology tells us that the Bible doesn’t even imply a flat earth, which is why the early church fathers taught a spherical earth.

          By the way, do you really believe the earth is a flat square? I ask because I don’t know any flat-earth model that has the earth as a flat square. No flat-earth model is anywhere close to being consistent with even ancient observations, much less current ones. However, the flat square earth is even more difficult to deal with, as the Chinese astronomers from the 6th century BC discovered. As a result, all flat-earth models I have seen portray earth as a disk. If you believe the earth is a flat square, do you have a model for how that works? If not, why do you use a bad interpretation of these verses to support a flat earth? Your bad interpretation says that the earth has corners. Do you believe that? You would be the first flat-earther I have communicated with to actually believe that insanely unworkable idea.

          You don’t have to “believe” the Columbus story, even though it is true. All you have to do is some world travel, and it is very clear that the earth is a sphere. I have traveled from here to New Zealand, and I have projected my trip on a flat map. I have seen that my path is curved on a flat map, because the airplane was following the curve of the earth.

          Indeed, you don’t even have to travel the world. Just be on a ship with good optical equipment. a commenter on my blog post that demonstrates the earth cannot possibly be flat said this:

          I was a naval officer for a number of years, working on submarines. I stood officer of the deck both on the bridge and at periscope depth. We had superior optics, whether using the best binoculars the navy can buy when on the bridge, or whether using the periscope at periscope depth. I cannot list how many times I observed contacts appear hull down, seeing first masts, then superstructure, then finally, as the range closed, observing the entire ship. This was true whether we were looking at trawlers, container ships, destroyers, or aircraft carriers.

          Now I realize that a commenter can say anything he or she wants, but I had never heard the phrase “hull down” before. So I investigated it. It is a standard nautical term, which is

          Said of a vessel when it is so far away from the observer that the hull is invisible owing to the convexity of the earth’s surface, while the masts are still seen. The opposite of hull up.

          This term originated in naval operations, so there is no need to “believe” Columbus to understand that the earth is a sphere.

          The least stress solution is to believe what is consistent with the data, and a oblate spheroid earth is the only shape that is consistent with the data. Also, by following the data, I am not put in the uncomfortable position of leveling false accusations against people.

  10. Erick says:

    By what degree is the moon upside down at all in australia, lets compare these:

    https://fineartamerica.com/featured/new-york-city-moonrise-susan-candelario.html

    “New York City Moonrise

    The full moon rises over the New York City (NYC) skyline during the twilight hour. A view from New Jersey across the Hudson River with The Empire State Building illuminated in red, white and blue. ”

    compared to australia moonrise:

    https://www.northernstar.com.au/news/byron-bay-moon-rise-timelapse-goes-global/3143188/

    ” Byron Bay moon rise timelapse goes global
    14th Feb 2017 10:37 AM
    1

    A SPECTACULAR time lapse video of a full moon rising over Byron Bay has gone around the world more than a year after it was first shot.

    US news giant ABC News has tweeted more than 40 seconds of the timelapse by Luke Taylor of Surflife Australia Photography, which was taken more than a year ago. ”

    We can both see the moon didn’t rise upside down, right??

    Using the bunny ears as the guide?

    If you are wrong, you will have to drop everything to get through the eye of the needle!!

    I know its flat, i have no doubt. The evil spell is broken over me. You have zero potential of converting me back into a NASA cult follower. Btw, Satanasa is a female Satan. Humpty Dumpty has real meaning.

    My first flight I was astounded how flat America was after I got ever the Appalachian mountains. Flat as far as the eye can see. I even used some of my first flights photography in a FAA intranet page banner. I was amazed at how flat Indiana was. I took hills for granted in Northeast. Any hill I seen in Indiana was an artificial one. All flat.

    Really , Flight and aviation is what lead me into flat earth. Planes will have a really hard time operating on ball earth. Was a dead give away for me.

    https://www.usu.edu/geo/geomorph/kansas.html

    “Measuring the flatness of Kansas presented us with a greater challenge than measuring the flatness of the pancake. The state is so flat that the off-the-shelf software produced a flatness value for it of 1. This value was, as they say, too good to be true, so we did a more complex analysis, and after many hours of programming work, we were able to estimate that Kansas’s flatness is approximately 0.9997. That degree of flatness might be described, mathematically, as “damn flat.” ”

    So if Kansas is flat no curve, and Indiana flat, and the whole tectonic “plate” flat, except for mountains, when do we get this curve you keep talking about boats going over?

    World Record Distance Photo PROVES The Earth Is Flat!!!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIHPi2rVVOw

    There are lots of these line of sight distance photos taken of objects that should be on other side of curve.

    How do radio signals make it through the van allen radiation belts without being scrambled?

    Microwaves in kitchens have jammed cordless phone signals.

    1. Jay Wile says:

      Spoken like a true believer, Erick! You are basically saying that no amount of evidence will change your mind. That’s fine, of course. I really don’t care whether or not you have a realistic view of the world. However, I would at least ask that you stop falsely accusing people. The authors of those Cornell sites weren’t lying, and NASA is not a cult. Please at least have the decency to act in a Christian manner to others who are willing to follow the evidence where it leads even though you are unwilling to do so.

      I am not even sure why you say a spherical earth is a NASA thing. NASA started in 1958. Aristotle showed that the earth is a sphere in the third century BC. Eratosthenes measured the distance around the sphere in about 200 BC. The early church fathers taught a spherical earth. Scientists from the third century to the present understand the earth is a sphere. The term “hull down” was coined in the naval industry, and it is the result of the fact that the earth is a sphere. Airplane navigation is based on a spherical earth. In the 18th century, the French Academy of Science sent expeditions to the equator and near the arctic to find that the sphere of the earth is actually oblate. NASA is pretty late in the game! Also, there are lots of other countries who have astronomers. Are they all members of this NASA “cult.” What about the Christian astronomers? Are they all in the cult as well?

      Now, as far as the moon is concerned. Look where New York is and compare it to where Byron Bay is. They are not on correspondingly opposite sides of the globe, so the moon won’t be completely upside down when compared to the other. Also, we have no idea what time of year each was taken. All of that affects the comparison. Even with all of that, the moon is decidedly different in the video than it is in the picture. Of course, if you do the comparison correctly, as the links I showed you do, you see a completely upside down moon. Once again, then, the moon is not at all consistent with a flat earth, but it is completely consistent with a spherical earth.

      If flight led you to believe in a flat earth, you didn’t observe things very carefully. Please explain why the flight times to distant places are completely inconsistent with a flat earth but perfectly consistent with a spherical earth. Please explain why flight paths that are projected on a flat earth are curved.

      I think you are a bit confused about what the scientists were saying at “Kansas is Flatter than a Pancake.” They state their method in the paper:

      One common method of quantifying ‘flatness’ in geodesy is the ‘flattening’ ratio. The length of an ellipse’s (or arc’s) semi-major axis a is compared with its measured semi-minor axis b using the formula for flattening, f = (a – b) / a. A perfectly flat surface will have a flattening f of one, whereas an ellipsoid with equal axis lengths will have no flattening, and f will equal zero.

      For example, the earth is slightly flattened at the poles due to the earth’s rotation, making its semi-major axis slightly longer than its semi-minor axis, giving a global f of 0.00335. For both Kansas and the pancake, we approximated the local ellipsoid with a second-order polynomial line fit to the cross-sections. These polynomial equations allowed us to estimate the local ellipsoid’s semi-major and semi-minor axes and thus we can calculate the flattening measure f.

      So right there in the report, they are telling you that the earth is a sphere (f = 0.00335). What they are saying is that Kansas actually has few bumps. Indeed, they say that the pancake has a lot:

      The calculated flatness of the pancake transect from the digital image is approximately 0.957, which is pretty flat, but far from perfectly flat. The confocal laser scan showed the pancake surface to be slightly rougher, still.

      As far as the video you sent, a commenter on that video got it right:

      The world record photo in question here was taken on top of the mountain in the Pyrenees at a height above sea level of 2826m. The mountain in the background is in the French Alps at a height above sea level of 3883m. The 273mi(439351m) photograph distance gives me an accurate calculation of what is shown in the photo. The elevation of the camera means it can capture beyond the conventional horizon at ground level. That paired with the fact that it took a picture of something taller means that a photo in question is not only possible on a round earth, but mathematically proven as well. Your calculations did not stand up to scrutiny unfortunately. Great effort, but you’re using fuzzy math.

      Line of sight photos can be optically deceiving because changes in temperature can cause the air to become a lens. Once again, in my blog post that shows the earth cannot possibly be flat, I link to an article that explains the optics of photographs and how you must be very careful in interpreting them. He then shows a series of pictures that he took (all on the same day to avoid the temperature issue) that show the earth is curved.

      As far as radio waves making it through the Van Allen Belts, we know that radio waves pass through the Van Allen belts, since we receive radio waves from stars. Indeed, our own sun sends radio waves that can be received here on earth. Please note that radio waves do not have to stay constant in wavelength or frequency to be used to measure the distance to each planet. All you have to do is send out a high-intensity burst of radio waves and wait for the high-intensity echo. If the wavelengths and frequencies have been altered due to interactions along the way, that doesn’t affect the distance measurement at all. Changing the frequency of a cell phone’s signal can really mess it up, because it is looking at specific frequencies so as to have a clear audio signal. That’s not the case in experiments that give us the accurate distances to the planets and the sun.

      Also, how do you explain the Van Allen belts in a flat earth? I understand how they form as a result of the earth’s magnetic field that is aligned to the rotation of the spherical earth and the fact that the sun is very far away and produces a lot of thermonuclear fusion. How do you get the Van Allen belts in a flat earth with a tiny sun that is so close?

      Once again, I would ask you if you believe the earth has corners, like a square or rectangle. Your quoting of Scripture leads me to think that you do. If so, could you please explain how you envision an earth with corners. Why can’t we see these corners? If you don’t think the earth has corners, why do you interpret Scripture to mean that the earth has corners, despite the fact that I have shown you that there is no theological reason to assume that’s what those verses mean.

  11. Erick says:

    I made this info-graphic to illustrate what Cornell couldn’t.

    Full Moon 2 hemisphere comparison .png:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dSv2UShWo3Nj1Q9f4Mvv6CdOkNodIXYj/view?usp=sharing

    80 degrees difference is way off from 180 degrees. I have compared a lot of images so far and most degree difference is between 55-90 degrees. Some are very close to same orientation in both hemispheres.

    And not to mention the 2 Dimensional behavior of the moon. Moon looks the same in both hemispheres.

    I hope this graphic helps you see what I am saying.

    1. Jay Wile says:

      No, the moon does not look the same in both hemispheres. Your very graphic shows that. The rabbit ears are at 2 o’clock in San Jose and 10 o’clock in Mt. Victoria. That’s very different, and once again, not possible from a flat earth. Now look at what you get when you compare the moon at corresponding points in the two hemispheres and roughly the same date:

      http://www.drwile.com/moon_upside_down.jpg

      Obviously upside down and backwards. Clearly, then, the moon is VERY different in the hemispheres. Once again, completely understandable in a spherical earth, utterly inconsistent with a flat earth.

      Once again, how do you explain the Van Allen belts in a flat earth? I understand how they form as a result of the earth’s magnetic field that is aligned to the rotation of the spherical earth and the fact that the sun is very far away and produces a lot of thermonuclear fusion. How do you get the Van Allen belts in a flat earth with a tiny sun that is so close?

      Once again, I would ask you if you believe the earth has corners, like a square or rectangle. Your quoting of Scripture leads me to think that you do. If so, could you please explain how you envision an earth with corners. Why can’t we see these corners? If you don’t think the earth has corners, why do you interpret Scripture to mean that the earth has corners, despite the fact that I have shown you that there is no theological reason to assume that’s what those verses mean.

      1. Erick says:

        Correction**

        Cornell’s site stated the moon was upside down when viewed from Australia or New Zealand without pictures to back it up.

        To me, upside down means 180 degrees. In my graphic I illustrated it to be 80 degrees difference counter-clockwise. Some photos are closer to 50 degrees but moon is higher in sky. It’s the same 2d face, just rotated.

        By your logic there should be a place on earth where the moon is 180 degrees upside down compared to North America USA perspective.

        I actually don’t believe NASA about the Van allen radiation belts. No one is escaping without escort. It’s gonna be a lot harder for them to fake a moon landing now with so many tech savvy kids. They are gonna need some strong magic to do it.

        It’s just another lie based on another lie. NASA** was founded by Nazi’s and Disney remember!!

        Yeah, I see us in a Box, a machine of some kind. We put ants in boxes. We put cattle in boxes. Flat universe has edges.

        Kansas Is Flatter Than a Pancake
        https://www.usu.edu/geo/geomorph/kansas.html

        “Conclusion

        Simply put, our results show that Kansas is considerably flatter than a pancake.”

        Look at some of the worlds longest runways. That is perfect flat for miles.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_runways
        Qamdo Bamda Airport[1] China 18,045ft

        Square Earth, Round Heavens!!

        Airplanes work so much better on Flat earth too.

        At this point I can only believe what the good book says, what can I trust other than the book now??

        Can’t trust fake news, can’t trust TV, can’t trust gov, can barely trust family.

        Whoever created this “game” left a few manuals for us…

        1. Jay Wile says:

          Cornell’s site is exactly right. When viewed from corresponding points in the two hemispheres on the same day, the moon is 180 degrees rotated. You say, “By your logic there should be a place on earth where the moon is 180 degrees upside down compared to North America USA perspective.” That’s exactly what the two photos I posted show! One in the US, and one in South America, and they are 180 degrees rotated. Once again, the moon is exactly what you expect for a spherical earth and utterly inconsistent with a flat earth.

          I know you don’t believe NASA, but that’s not what I asked. We know the Van Allen belts exist, and their existence is easily understood in a spherical earth. Like most observations, their existence is inconsistent with a flat earth.

          So you think the earth has corners. Interesting. Why can’t we see these corners? It seems to me it would be very easy to find them and verify their existence.

          I agree that the researchers say that Kansas is flatter than a pancake. In addition, as they also state that the earth is a sphere with a flatness of only 0.00335. Their discussion of flatness is related to hills and valleys, as is clearly shown in the link you posted. I wonder why you believe their assessment of Kansas when you don’t agree with their measurement that the earth is a sphere. Seems the definition of cherry picking.

          Yes, there are lot of places that LOOK very flat. The moon also LOOKS like it changes size in the sky. The sun LOOKS like it changes color in the evening. The motion of matter LOOKS like objects prefer to be at rest. However, none of those things is true. Science is about determining what is real, not what things LOOK like!

          And no, airplane travel is inconsistent with a flat earth. As the link I posted before demonstrates, the transit times do not work in a flat earth. Neither do their flight paths.

          There is no reason to believe the “fake news.” There is no need to believe anyone. Simply do the kinds of observations that the ancients did, and you will understand that the earth is a sphere. You could also do the observations suggested in this article (scroll down to “Prove it to Yourself”), which is linked from my post that shows the earth can’t possibly be flat.

          Also, you definitely SHOULD believe the Bible. Just like the early church fathers and every major voice in the history of Christendom did. They all believed the Bible and also understood that the earth is a sphere.

  12. Jay Wile says:

    If anyone has been following this thread, please note that I had to stop accepting Erick’s comments. He continued to level false charges against people, and I simply have no patience for that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: