The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Jimmy McGill on January 11, 2019, 11:45:45 PM
-
What does flat earth hypothesis have to say about Jupiter?
Jupiter clearly rotates on an axis, roughy once every 10 hours (the equatorial region rotates more quickly than at the poles), compared to the earth’s roughly 24 hour rotation.
This can be visibly observed and is thus a fact.
What is equally as interesting to me is your opinions on the orbit of the Galilean moons.
We not only observe the larger moons orbit around Jupiter, but we can also see the shadows they cast on the planet!
How are these observations explained on a flat earth? What drives the orbit of the moons of not gravity? What casts the shadow on the planet if not the moons coming between Jupiter and the sun?
-
Actually, FE has a selective gravity called celestial gravitation which covers orbits and stuff like that.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
About the shadows of the moons, with the sun circling over the Flat earth, I think it would be something like a geocentric model and work about the same I think. The only weird part would be that the sun would be over on the other side of the earth when it's night at your side, so if you look at Jupiter through a telescope, and see moon shadows, then where's the light causing the shadow coming from? If it's the sun, then how is sunlight traveling across the flat earth to Jupiter? If the Sun was a sphere that shone in all directions, then shouldn't sunlight be able to illuminate your night? But with a spotlight sun, the light has to coming from elsewhere, but I've never heard FErs say there was a second star in our solar system. What do I have wrong here?
-
Actually, FE has a selective gravity called celestial gravitation which covers orbits and stuff like that.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
About the shadows of the moons, with the sun circling over the Flat earth, I think it would be something like a geocentric model and work about the same I think. The only weird part would be that the sun would be over on the other side of the earth when it's night at your side, so if you look at Jupiter through a telescope, and see moon shadows, then where's the light causing the shadow coming from? If it's the sun, then how is sunlight traveling across the flat earth to Jupiter? If the Sun was a sphere that shone in all directions, then shouldn't sunlight be able to illuminate your night? But with a spotlight sun, the light has to coming from elsewhere, but I've never heard FErs say there was a second star in our solar system. What do I have wrong here?
This is the conundrum:
How does a spotlight sun point up to cast moon shadows on Jupiter?
V
How is a sphere sun, illuminating in all directions, not seen, given enough elevation and perhaps a telescope from an observer in darkness?
-
The atmoplane doesn't exist between the celestial bodies, but builds up a haze we cannot see beyond on the surface.
-
Actually, FE has a selective gravity called celestial gravitation which covers orbits and stuff like that.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
About the shadows of the moons, with the sun circling over the Flat earth, I think it would be something like a geocentric model and work about the same I think. The only weird part would be that the sun would be over on the other side of the earth when it's night at your side, so if you look at Jupiter through a telescope, and see moon shadows, then where's the light causing the shadow coming from? If it's the sun, then how is sunlight traveling across the flat earth to Jupiter? If the Sun was a sphere that shone in all directions, then shouldn't sunlight be able to illuminate your night? But with a spotlight sun, the light has to coming from elsewhere, but I've never heard FErs say there was a second star in our solar system. What do I have wrong here?
That selective gravity has too many problems for me to address, but I’ll just leave it at this.
It says there’s an attractive force between objects with mass on the earth and the “heavenly bodies”. It says nothing about celestial objects attracting each other.
I won’t even go over how the “heavenly bodies” would come crashing down were such a force real on a flat earth.
No, I don’t think their side will get any help going down that avenue.
Would love to hear from Tom or Pete!
-
The atmoplane doesn't exist between the celestial bodies, but builds up a haze we cannot see beyond on the surface.
My original post mentioned nothing about the atmosphere.
EDIT: I don’t think anyone mentioned anything about the atmosphere, actually.
-
The atmoplane doesn't exist between the celestial bodies, but builds up a haze we cannot see beyond on the surface.
My original post mentioned nothing about the atmosphere.
EDIT: I don’t think anyone mentioned anything about the atmosphere, actually.
I was responding to the post above mine.
-
The atmoplane doesn't exist between the celestial bodies...
How is this known to FET?
...but builds up a haze we cannot see beyond on the surface.
And if this were true then we wouldn't be able to observe celestial bodies with a telescope.
-
The atmoplane doesn't exist between the celestial bodies...
How is this known to FET?
...but builds up a haze we cannot see beyond on the surface.
And if this were true then we wouldn't be able to observe celestial bodies with a telescope.
The light of the celestial bodies are projected onto the atmosphere in a circle beneath and around them like the sun is described to do in ENAG and the Wiki. When the edges of that circle intersect with the observer's limited circle of vision they will rise for that observer.
-
The atmoplane doesn't exist between the celestial bodies...
How is this known to FET?
...but builds up a haze we cannot see beyond on the surface.
And if this were true then we wouldn't be able to observe celestial bodies with a telescope.
The light of the celestial bodies are projected onto the atmosphere in a circle beneath and around them like the sun is described to do in ENAG and the Wiki. When the edges of that circle intersect with the observer's limited circle of vision they will rise for that observer.
That answers neither question. Read the questions again.
-
The atmoplane doesn't exist between the celestial bodies...
How is this known to FET?
...but builds up a haze we cannot see beyond on the surface.
And if this were true then we wouldn't be able to observe celestial bodies with a telescope.
The light of the celestial bodies are projected onto the atmosphere in a circle beneath and around them like the sun is described to do in ENAG and the Wiki. When the edges of that circle intersect with the observer's limited circle of vision they will rise for that observer.
From the wiki:
“Zeteticism differs from the usual scientific method in that using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved.”
Have you observed anything you are claiming on this thread? Do you have proof?
-
Just out of interest on the same related topic, as well as observing and imaging Jupiter and its associate satellite phenomenon for several years now through my own telescopes I have also seen the shadow of Saturn on its own ring system. It looks like a big chunk of the ring system is missing just to one side of the planet. Saturn is twice as far away from the Sun as Jupiter (5AUs against 10AUs approx.). The only time when you cannot see a shadow on the rings is when Saturn reaches opposition. I.e. there is an alignment between the Sun, Earth and Saturn with Earth in the middle. In that situation the shadow lies behind Saturn so you wouldn't expect to see it.
Tom is always going on about proof and to me seeing something with my own eyes by pointing a telescope towards a planet in the sky is proof. If not then please let me know what you need Tom and I will provide it.
-
Jupiter has the same diameter as that of the Moon, Sun, Black Sun, Shadow Moon.
Its shape is discoidal, it is the layers of clouds which rotate above its surface.
The most puzzling fact about Jupiter is its angular momentum and its infrared radiation:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=55860.msg1393321#msg1393321
As for the orbits of its moons, you need to understand the flux of gravitons paradox.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1723400#msg1723400 (second part of the message, Sun - Jupiter - Io system)
-
Jupiter has the same diameter as that of the Moon, Sun, Black Sun, Shadow Moon. - No it doesn't. Jupiter is 11x Earth diameter
Its shape is discoidal, it is the layers of clouds which rotate above its surface. - Jupiter exhibits polar flattening more than any other planet on account of its rapid rotation. Made of H/He about the same as the Sun
The most puzzling fact about Jupiter is its angular momentum and its infrared radiation: - Not really. Jupiter shows internal heating in IR which is down to its mass.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=55860.msg1393321#msg1393321
As for the orbits of its moons, you need to understand the flux of gravitons paradox. - The graviton is as yet unconfirmed by the Standard Model.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1723400#msg1723400 (second part of the message, Sun - Jupiter - Io system)
-
Jupiter has the same diameter as that of the Moon, Sun, Black Sun, Shadow Moon.
Its shape is discoidal, it is the layers of clouds which rotate above its surface.
The most puzzling fact about Jupiter is its angular momentum and its infrared radiation:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=55860.msg1393321#msg1393321
As for the orbits of its moons, you need to understand the flux of gravitons paradox.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1723400#msg1723400 (second part of the message, Sun - Jupiter - Io system)
Evidence? We can measure the Ganymede, Callisto, Io, Europa orbit periods around Jupiter from Earth.... Ganymede 7.1 days, Callisto 16.7 days, Europa 3.6 days, Io 1.8 days. They are clearly orbiting a spherical Jupiter. If you have evidence showing a discoidal shape you should offer it.
-
If you look at Jupiter through a simple pair of binoculars you can see it as a distinct disk. Not three dimensional as you don't have the image scale. But through a telescope you can see the flattening effect of features like the red spot which shows the spherical nature of the planet.
-
If you have evidence showing a discoidal shape you should offer it.
Here is the ultimate proof: the shape of the Sun is not spherical.
Precise calculations, using the Clayton equation:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765
If the Sun has a discoidal shape, then so must all of the other planets (including Jupiter).
Evidence? We can measure the Ganymede, Callisto, Io, Europa orbit periods around Jupiter from Earth.... Ganymede 7.1 days, Callisto 16.7 days, Europa 3.6 days, Io 1.8 days.
Right.
According to which law of gravitation do these satellites orbit around Jupiter?
It cannot be an attractive law of gravitation.
Here is the flux of gravitons paradox, (how a three body system cannot function given the attractive gravity scenario) - for a better visualization, use Sun - Jupiter - Io
"OBJECTIVE: Demonstrate that this interchange of gravitational particles again will seem to result in violations of conservation of energy. We will do this by demonstrating that, if matter is indeed influenced by gravitational particles, then, even under normal orbital conditions, gravity should decrease, due to a gravitational shadowing effect. This shadowing effect would violate conservation of energy.
Thought Experiment: IMAGINE THAT GRAVITONS BEHAVE LIKE PHOTONS
(for descriptive purposes only)
To better visualize how this partial gravitational influence might be encountered, let us describe gravity and gravitational interaction in terms of light, so that:
If gravitons exist, violations of the Law of Conservation of Energy will almost certainly occur.
Brilliance of light = gravitational attraction = (emission of gravitons)
Decreasing Transparency = Increasing Density and Mass
In this thought experiment, we will specify one sun, one earth and one moon. Each will be partially luminous, to simulate their 'output' of gravitons, and each will also be partially opaque, to indicate their 'capturing-of' or their 'reception-of' gravitons. We would then have the following description of the system.
In this imaginary system, the moon orbits the earth, and the earth-moon pair orbits the sun. Since glow will simulate gravity emitted, we could describe this sun as glowing brighter that this earth, and this earth as glowing brighter than the moon.
In addition, the moon would be more transparent than the earth, and the earth would be less transparent than the sun. This would simulate the increasing 'interception' of gravity, with an increase of both the density and mass from the moon, to the earth then to the sun in our imaginary example.
In this example, the light from the sun would 'attract' the earth and the moon (simulating the pull of gravity). The earth would glow less brilliantly than the sun, but still brighter than the moon. The moon would be attracted to both the earth and the sun, but would orbit the earth. The earth moon pair would then orbit the sun together.
In this example, the moon would spend more time in the earth's shadow, and the earth's shadow would be comparatively darker than the moon's shadow. Since the moon would be attracted to the sun only by the light from the sun, and the light emitted by the earth with the sun shining through the less transparent earth would be less than the light emitted by the sun directly, the moon would gain some amount of orbital distance from the sun every time the moon 'hid' in the earth's shadow.
This gain of gravitational energy, simulated in this example with light and transparency, {for visual purposes only}, would violate conservation of energy. If gravitons exist, they must self-condradictingly pass through nearer masses unaffected, so as not to decrease gravity for masses at a further distance, while still interacting with those closer masses at the same time.
Otherwise, we are left with the choice that masses at a distance will randomly gain some gravitational potential energy depending on whether randomly distributed nearer masses create a gravitational 'shadow' effect. We are once again led to the conclusion that gravitons, if they exist, must create violations of conservation of energy. This is hardly a reliable theoretical endorsement of gravitons, when conservation of energy must fall by the wayside in order to allow gravitons to exist. A much more logical conclusion is again, gravitons do not exist, and cannot exist. Some other method of explaining gravitational interactions must be needed."
-
Curios about your mentioning of the 'black Sun'. Could you elaborate a bit more on that one please and if you don't think the Sun is spherical then good luck with that idea!
-
So, if the sun is discoidal, everyone who can see the sun is staring perpendicular to its surface and seeing what we think is a sphere?
And videos of Jupiter's rotation viewed through telescopes by amateurs are faked?
If the sun is proven to be spherical, then so must all of the other planets (including Jupiter). And Earth? If a single planet or star is proven to be spherical, does that mean that the Earth must also be spherical?
-
I know the videos that I have taken of Jupiters rotation are not faked because I was the one who recorded and processed them using my own equipment. I am actually recording some video of the Moon right now in the same way. And the surface looks very spherical I have to say. I can give you a step by step guide on how I do them if anyone is interested to know.
-
If you want anyone to believe you that the surface of Jupiter has a spherical shape, then you must explain both the faint young sun paradox and the dating of the comets' tails paradox:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1640735#msg1640735
The age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.
The upper age of the comets, based on very precise calculations, cannot be higher than 2,000 years (heliocentrical context). Not nearly enough time for the Sun and Jupiter to attain a spherical shape.
-
I personally don't care a hoot who believes me or not. I would be interested to know what calculations you are basing your comet age on. You have missed a fews zeros off your results there I'm afraid.
-
I'd like to know how the spot on Jupiter can be seen sliding across from one side to the other, disappearing, waiting the appropriate amount of time it would take on a sphere to appear on the other side, then reappearing only to cross again and again. This pac-man effect is logical on a sphere, and not on a disk.
-
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the age of the solar system is a tad bit more than 2000 years. Not sure how anyone can dispute that.
-
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the age of the solar system is a tad bit more than 2000 years. Not sure how anyone can dispute that.
...when science meets religion...
-
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the age of the solar system is a tad bit more than 2000 years. Not sure how anyone can dispute that.
...when science meets religion...
well recorded history is more than 2000 years old so not much to do with science.
-
If you want anyone to believe you that the surface of Jupiter has a spherical shape, then you must explain both the faint young sun paradox and the dating of the comets' tails paradox
Jupiter is observably a sphere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izRld2t-Xw8
-
Yes and that red spot that you see in the equatorial belt is three times the diameter of Earth or about 24,000 miles.
-
What you have are layers of clouds which are rotating around an unspecified geometrical shape.
Again, if you want anyone to even look in your direction regarding your claims (Jupiter is a sphere) you must prove/explain the faint young sun paradox: not enough time for Jupiter to have attained a spherical shape.
Yes and that red spot that you see in the equatorial belt is three times the diameter of Earth or about 24,000 miles.
Jupiter has the same diameter as that of the Moon/Shadow Moon/Black Sun/Sun: some 636 meters. Therefore, that red spot has some 100 meters in diameter, that's all.
-
With respect Mr Sandokhan, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever looked at Jupiter through any kind of optical instrument? Oh yes and 636 meters is pretty specific. Where do you get that from? Jupiters diameter is 88,000 miles unless you can prove me wrong.
-
I'm sorry but the young sun paradox has nothing to do with the age of the solar system. It is a paradox based on the sun's calculated output at the time which known lifeforms first populated earth and also how water was not frozen at the time. It has nothing to do with age of anything. You are connecting a paradox to a comet trail age paradox. Two separate unrelated things and extrapolating it out to some odd theory that the Earth is only 2000 years old? By the way, its 2019. You are 19 years off.
-
So do these people who make these wild claims about the age of the solar system take no notice of the results of carbon dating of rock material from various parts of the world. You don't need a huge budget or funding to get hold of the equipment you need to do that and the results are self conclusive.
-
What you have are layers of clouds which are rotating around an unspecified geometrical shape.
And the rotation of said layers of clouds is consistent with that of a spheroid shape. Not a square, hexagon, dodecahedron, dinosaur, or discoidal shape.
-
Apparently, Sandhokan reads Faulkner - some young earth creationist that has been debunked multiple times. It has been proven that the Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt exists and is the source of comets.
My kids like dinosaur shaped chicken nuggets.
-
With respect Mr Sandokhan, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever looked at Jupiter through any kind of optical instrument? Oh yes and 636 meters is pretty specific. Where do you get that from? Jupiters diameter is 88,000 miles unless you can prove me wrong.
You need to prove your own self right. Those astronomical measuring methods are flawed. Read Kings Dethroned.
-
With respect Mr Sandokhan, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever looked at Jupiter through any kind of optical instrument? Oh yes and 636 meters is pretty specific. Where do you get that from? Jupiters diameter is 88,000 miles unless you can prove me wrong.
You need to prove your own self right. Those astronomical measuring methods are flawed. Read Kings Dethroned.
The random guy who wrote Kings Dethroned provides no real evidence astronomical measuring methods are flawed. He simply just says that they are. And that's just not good enough I'm afraid.
-
You need to prove your own self right
Well I appreciate your request Tom but I don't think I need to prove anything that hasn't been more than adequately proved already. I have taken countless images of Jupiter at various stages of rotation and through those I have been able to measure Jupiters rate of rotation through my own data and no one elses. Which incidentally is a shade under 10 hours for the equator and a shade more for the polar regions. If you check the Internet you will find a lot of data from a lot of different and verifiable sources that will back me up on that.
As far as your invitation to read Kings Dethroned is concerned I will politely decline. As I'm sure you would decline to read the many books that I could quote and will verify everything I say on here.
"Those astronomical measuring methods are flawed" - Another one of your opinions Tom and not one widely shared I don't think.
-
With respect Mr Sandokhan, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever looked at Jupiter through any kind of optical instrument? Oh yes and 636 meters is pretty specific. Where do you get that from? Jupiters diameter is 88,000 miles unless you can prove me wrong.
You need to prove your own self right. Those astronomical measuring methods are flawed. Read Kings Dethroned.
The random guy who wrote Kings Dethroned provides no real evidence astronomical measuring methods are flawed. He simply just says that they are. And that's just not good enough I'm afraid.
He doesn't just say that they are wrong, he shows how they are flawed. No one has shown the analysis to be wrong.
As far as your invitation to read Kings Dethroned is concerned I will politely decline. As I'm sure you would decline to read the many books that I could quote and will verify everything I say on here.
I haven't declined in addressing anything. If you would like to provide evidence for the size and distance to Jupiter, I would be happy to look at it.
For your own query, see the work Kings Dethroned. Otherwise perhaps you should not ask us questions if you are unwilling to look at the evidence.
-
Has anyone shown the analysis to be right?
-
With respect Mr Sandokhan, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever looked at Jupiter through any kind of optical instrument? Oh yes and 636 meters is pretty specific. Where do you get that from? Jupiters diameter is 88,000 miles unless you can prove me wrong.
You need to prove your own self right. Those astronomical measuring methods are flawed. Read Kings Dethroned.
The random guy who wrote Kings Dethroned provides no real evidence astronomical measuring methods are flawed. He simply just says that they are. And that's just not good enough I'm afraid.
He doesn't just say that they are wrong, he shows how they are flawed. No one has shown the analysis to be wrong.
As far as your invitation to read Kings Dethroned is concerned I will politely decline. As I'm sure you would decline to read the many books that I could quote and will verify everything I say on here.
I haven't declined in addressing anything. If you would like to provide evidence for the size and distance to Jupiter, I would be happy to look at it.
For your own query, see the work Kings Dethroned. Otherwise perhaps you should not ask us questions if you are unwilling to look at the evidence.
This is essentially the summation of Kings Dethroned (It falls into the classic, "everyone is doing it wrong bucket"):
"By that almost inconceivable blunder real and
imaginary angles came into conflict on two different
planes, so the triangulation was entirely lost ; and as
a consequence the distance of the moon is no more
known to-day than it was at the time of the flood. "
The author believes he is showing how all astronomical measurements are wrong and then proceeds not show what the correct measurements should be. A measurement method he believes he has that is superior to the ones commonly used back in the day. Yet no revelation as to what the size and distances of celestial objects are using his method. Odd.
-
You asked for evidence of the size of/distance to Jupiter Tom so here's three websites which provides this information
https://theskylive.com/jupiter-info
https://www.calsky.com/cs.cgi/Planets/6?
https://theplanets.org/distances-between-planets/
Let me know if you want any more... there are plenty.
The mass of Jupiter is easy to determine on account of the satellites that orbit around it. From that the distance and size can be deduced with some simple physics and maths. This applies equally to Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
-
Tom,
Are there copies of this book to which you refer that are available in full and original print to the public? I have a decided interest in reading it in full instead of excerpts posted by either side of the debate.
-
You asked for evidence of the size of/distance to Jupiter Tom so here's three websites which provides this information
https://theskylive.com/jupiter-info
https://www.calsky.com/cs.cgi/Planets/6?
https://theplanets.org/distances-between-planets/
Let me know if you want any more... there are plenty.
Your evidence is a number that shows up on a website?
In the face of a book demonstrating how those methods for determining that number are wrong, I don't see how a written number on a website tells us much.
Tom,
Are there copies of this book to which you refer that are available in full and original print to the public? I have a decided interest in reading it in full instead of excerpts posted by either side of the debate.
It's here: https://archive.org/details/kingsdethronedhi00hickrich
Dubey also has an audiobook verion on YouTube.
-
Ok Tom I have several books which also quotes the same figures that these websites do. I can take photos of the pages that gives these figures. Would that be evidence enough for you? Short of hiring a spacecraft equipped with a very long tape measure I can provide pretty much any evidence you want so just let me know.
In any case, numbers shown on a website or numbers shown on the page of a book. What's the difference?
-
Ok Tom I have several books which also quotes the same figures that these websites do. I can take photos of the pages that gives these figures. Would that be evidence enough for you? Short of hiring a spacecraft equipped with a very long tape measure I can provide pretty much any evidence you want so just let me know.
In any case, numbers shown on a website or numbers shown on the page of a book. What's the difference?
A number printed in a book wouldn't do it either. We are talking about how the numbers were originally derived. If that's wrong then it's all wrong.
Winning this matter should be easy. Just look up Dr. Halley's method of astronomical triangulation and show that it doesn't match up with the author of Kings Dethroned is talking about, and that the book is therefore all nonsense.
-
I didn't think it would. In fact I don't think any evidence I provide you with that is different to what your beliefs tell you would be acceptable so I am wasting my time. If you interpret that as a defeat on my side then that's up to you but the truth will win out in the end.
You carry on enjoying Kings Dethroned but I'm off to bed. What is so different about that book anyway that makes you accept that as evidence other than the fact that it discredits science like you do. I would discredit it for the same reasons on my side.
-
I didn't think it would. In fact I don't think any evidence I provide you with that is different to what your beliefs tell you would be acceptable so I am wasting my time. If you interpret that as a defeat on my side then that's up to you but the truth will win out in the end.
You carry on enjoying Kings Dethroned but I'm off to bed.
Quoting a number from a book isn't evidence at all when we are questioning how that number was derived. Surely we can see the fallacy.
What is so different about that book anyway that makes you accept that as evidence other than the fact that it discredits science like you do. I would discredit it for the same reasons on my side.
The author discusses the basics of triangulation and demonstrates that the astronomers are not using it properly. It's simple and straightforward demonstration that the methods are incorrect.
-
Ok, let's back up here. If you are asserting that numbers printed in a book are not evidence, then I firmly reject your statement elsewhere that medical data you provided is solid evidence that phosphorus is a legitimate medical treatment for specific diseases. That's literally all that was.
On another note, I can show you plenty of textbooks from my college years as I studied to become a mechanical engineer that had plenty of tables of data on such things as youngs modulus, density of metals, tensile strengths, ultimate yield strength, cyclical fatigue. If the astronomy texts that he is referring to is anything similar to my engineering textbooks, I bet you that there are explanations, examples, and equations that show how those numbers were calculated and demonstrated in real life experiments.
-
With respect Mr Sandokhan, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever looked at Jupiter through any kind of optical instrument? Oh yes and 636 meters is pretty specific. Where do you get that from? Jupiters diameter is 88,000 miles unless you can prove me wrong.
You need to prove your own self right. Those astronomical measuring methods are flawed. Read Kings Dethroned.
The random guy who wrote Kings Dethroned provides no real evidence astronomical measuring methods are flawed. He simply just says that they are. And that's just not good enough I'm afraid.
He doesn't just say that they are wrong, he shows how they are flawed. No one has shown the analysis to be wrong.
As far as your invitation to read Kings Dethroned is concerned I will politely decline. As I'm sure you would decline to read the many books that I could quote and will verify everything I say on here.
I haven't declined in addressing anything. If you would like to provide evidence for the size and distance to Jupiter, I would be happy to look at it.
For your own query, see the work Kings Dethroned. Otherwise perhaps you should not ask us questions if you are unwilling to look at the evidence.
This is essentially the summation of Kings Dethroned (It falls into the classic, "everyone is doing it wrong bucket"):
"By that almost inconceivable blunder real and
imaginary angles came into conflict on two different
planes, so the triangulation was entirely lost ; and as
a consequence the distance of the moon is no more
known to-day than it was at the time of the flood. "
The author believes he is showing how all astronomical measurements are wrong and then proceeds not show what the correct measurements should be. A measurement method he believes he has that is superior to the ones commonly used back in the day. Yet no revelation as to what the size and distances of celestial objects are using his method. Odd.
The only thing that matters, for the purposes of this discussion, is that the method used to measure distances by astronomers is wrong. The author of Kings Dethroned goes into detail as to why those methods are wrong. You haven't refuted his arguments, all you have is the claim that he provided "no revelation as to what the size and distances of celestial objects are using his method" which, of course, does not address his arguments as to why the methods used by astronomers are wrong. Is it because you have no refutation?
-
Ok Tom I have several books which also quotes the same figures that these websites do. I can take photos of the pages that gives these figures. Would that be evidence enough for you? Short of hiring a spacecraft equipped with a very long tape measure I can provide pretty much any evidence you want so just let me know.
In any case, numbers shown on a website or numbers shown on the page of a book. What's the difference?
A number printed in a book wouldn't do it either. We are talking about how the numbers were originally derived. If that's wrong then it's all wrong.
Winning this matter should be easy. Just look up Dr. Halley's method of astronomical triangulation and show that it doesn't match up with the author of Kings Dethroned is talking about, and that the book is therefore all nonsense.
Right, and Hickson's Kings Dethroned simply asserts reasons why he thinks the measurements are wrong. But then doesn't apply what he thinks is a superior methodology to telling us what the numbers actually are. In other words, none of his assertions are backed up. They are just assertions.
-
Ok, let's back up here. If you are asserting that numbers printed in a book are not evidence, then I firmly reject your statement elsewhere that medical data you provided is solid evidence that phosphorus is a legitimate medical treatment for specific diseases. That's literally all that was.
Those papers did show how the numbers were derived. Quoting a book about how big or far away Jupiter is in miles is meaningless when we are questioning whether the method of coming up with that number is correct.
On another note, I can show you plenty of textbooks from my college years as I studied to become a mechanical engineer that had plenty of tables of data on such things as youngs modulus, density of metals, tensile strengths, ultimate yield strength, cyclical fatigue. If the astronomy texts that he is referring to is anything similar to my engineering textbooks, I bet you that there are explanations, examples, and equations that show how those numbers were calculated and demonstrated in real life experiments.
You would be very disappointed to learn that Astronomy is mostly a science of observation and assumption.
Right, and Hickson's Kings Dethroned simply asserts reasons why he thinks the measurements are wrong. But then doesn't apply what he thinks is a superior methodology to telling us what the numbers actually are. In other words, none of his assertions are backed up. They are just assertions.
In his book he says that he would address the better methods in his sequel, which is not digitized online.
However, this has nothing to do with the fact that he demonstrates that astronomy is incorrect.
-
Ok Tom I have several books which also quotes the same figures that these websites do. I can take photos of the pages that gives these figures. Would that be evidence enough for you? Short of hiring a spacecraft equipped with a very long tape measure I can provide pretty much any evidence you want so just let me know.
In any case, numbers shown on a website or numbers shown on the page of a book. What's the difference?
A number printed in a book wouldn't do it either. We are talking about how the numbers were originally derived. If that's wrong then it's all wrong.
Winning this matter should be easy. Just look up Dr. Halley's method of astronomical triangulation and show that it doesn't match up with the author of Kings Dethroned is talking about, and that the book is therefore all nonsense.
Right, and Hickson's Kings Dethroned simply asserts reasons why he thinks the measurements are wrong. But then doesn't apply what he thinks is a superior methodology to telling us what the numbers actually are. In other words, none of his assertions are backed up. They are just assertions.
Non-sequitur. Also, Hickson doesn't "assert" that the measurements are wrong, he gives arguments as to why those methods are on shaky logical grounds.
-
Ok Tom I have several books which also quotes the same figures that these websites do. I can take photos of the pages that gives these figures. Would that be evidence enough for you? Short of hiring a spacecraft equipped with a very long tape measure I can provide pretty much any evidence you want so just let me know.
In any case, numbers shown on a website or numbers shown on the page of a book. What's the difference?
A number printed in a book wouldn't do it either. We are talking about how the numbers were originally derived. If that's wrong then it's all wrong.
Winning this matter should be easy. Just look up Dr. Halley's method of astronomical triangulation and show that it doesn't match up with the author of Kings Dethroned is talking about, and that the book is therefore all nonsense.
Right, and Hickson's Kings Dethroned simply asserts reasons why he thinks the measurements are wrong. But then doesn't apply what he thinks is a superior methodology to telling us what the numbers actually are. In other words, none of his assertions are backed up. They are just assertions.
Non-sequitur. Also, Hickson doesn't "assert" that the measurements are wrong, he gives arguments as to why those methods are on shaky logical grounds.
I don't think it's a non-sequitur. Tom keeps bringing up Hickson's book as some sort of proof that all of modern astronomical measurements are wrong. Fast forward almost 100 years from the technology existent back when he wrote his treatise, I'm loathe to accept Hickson's assertions as pravda. He uses triangulation to make his point. Negates refraction (Tom uses it all the time to support his side as does RE equally) And then asserts that his triangulation methods are superior but still can't exhibit their use to provide a measurement or distance of celestial body. He's basically devoting 100 pages to "Here's why I think everyone is mistaken based upon my methodology that I actually can't use to show how they are mistaken..."
-
Ok, let's back up here. If you are asserting that numbers printed in a book are not evidence, then I firmly reject your statement elsewhere that medical data you provided is solid evidence that phosphorus is a legitimate medical treatment for specific diseases. That's literally all that was.
Those papers did show how the numbers were derived. Quoting a book about how big or far away Jupiter is in miles is meaningless when we are questioning whether the method of coming up with that number is correct.
Exactly, and quoting one guy's book from 100 years ago asserting how he thinks the methodology is wrong based upon what he thinks is the right way, though he can't use his 'right way' to show us is dubious at best.
You would be very disappointed to learn that Astronomy is mostly a science of observation and assumption.
Not disappointed at all. Astronomy is mostly a science of observation, assumption, experimentation, calculation, theorizing, empiricism and conjecture. Rinse and repeat. Scientific method, much how we put a man on the moon and an iphone in your hand.
In his book he says that he would address the better methods in his sequel, which is not digitized online.
However, this has nothing to do with the fact that he demonstrates that astronomy is incorrect.
He asserts astronomy is incorrect. If he could demonstrate it, he would use his methodology to show such. Instead, he does not. I can find no reference to his later work, digitized or not. Seems to be a one off treatise.
-
What unsatisfying arguments. He doesn't need to correct the astronomers to show that they are wrong. He has demonstrated that they are wrong in his work.
Not asserterted Demonstrated. His opponents are unable to provide any rebuttal at all.
-
His assertion that they are wrong are not based on any mathematical conclusions of some error of any magnitude. It is literally based of the theory proposed by Hipparchus that since he could not measure the distance to the stars that they are infinitely distant. We know this to not be true. Flat Earthers provide a measurement. Round Earthers provide a measurement. The hypothesis that all of the astronomers are wrong because Hipparchus said that the stars are an infinitely distant is foolish. Infinitely distant means infinity, immeasurable. So........... and that's just in the first few pages. I will continue reading.
And in apparent attempt to not piss off the moderators, I will edit my response instead posting another reply. The next issue I have with the literary work of Gerrard is his assertion the Ptolemy accepted Hipparchus' theory without question. He cites no source for this. But, yes, please blindly accept his assertion about Ptolemy blindly accepting the previous work of Hipparchus. Anyone notice the logical fallacy there? Or was this an attempt at humor on the authors part?
-
Whenever I read arguments that don't directly address the subject matter, I just think to myself that the person is really saying:
"Yes, he did prove their methods wrong... But he didn't provide a correct method. Check!"
His assertion that they are wrong are not based on any mathematical conclusions of some error of any magnitude.
Continue reading. Halley's method for solar system distances starts on page 18. It is a mathematical flaw.
It is literally based of the theory proposed by Hipparchus that since he could not measure the distance to the stars that they are infinitely distant. We know this to not be true.
A big universe is the axiom they were operating on.
-
His assertion that they are wrong are not based on any mathematical conclusions of some error of any magnitude. It is literally based of the theory proposed by Hipparchus that since he could not measure the distance to the stars that they are infinitely distant. We know this to not be true. Flat Earthers provide a measurement. Round Earthers provide a measurement. The hypothesis that all of the astronomers are wrong because Hipparchus said that the stars are an infinitely distant is foolish. Infinitely distant means infinity, immeasurable. So........... and that's just in the first few pages. I will continue reading.
And in apparent attempt to not piss off the moderators, I will edit my response instead posting another reply. The next issue I have with the literary work of Gerrard is his assertion the Ptolemy accepted Hipparchus' theory without question. He cites no source for this. But, yes, please blindly accept his assertion about Ptolemy blindly accepting the previous work of Hipparchus. Anyone notice the logical fallacy there? Or was this an attempt at humor on the authors part?
Hickson's argument isn't the thing about "infinitely distant stars", he just says that the theoretical belief in infinitely distant stars is where astronomy initially went wrong. He knew that astronomers of the modern era don't believe in literally infinitely distant stars.
-
I also don't understand why he goes on these two little sidebars about Newton and gravity, and some random dude I have never heard of, Ole Roemer. Is there more of this type of crap further on into the book where just literally says every scientist before me is wrong? Between this book and Rowbotham, it seems like we have the basis for flat earth theory.
Further reading on the Dutch astronomer, Ole Roemer, shows that Hickrich incorrectly cites Roemers data as 16.5 minutes. That is incorrect. Roemers observations of the eclipses of Jupiters moons show 11 minutes fast, and 11 minutes slow for a total of 22 minutes. In fact, Roemer's observations had nothing to do with astronomical distances or the speed of light. That was not his intention in observing Jupiter. He never published a value for the speed of light or any distances. He hypothesized that the speed of light was not infinite, but that's it. It wasn't until later that another astronomer took his data and calculated a value for the speed of light. This book just keeps getting more and more ridiculous.
-
I also don't understand why he goes on these two little sidebars about Newton and gravity, and some random dude I have never heard of, Ole Roemer. Is there more of this type of crap further on into the book where just literally says every scientist before me is wrong? Between this book and Rowbotham, it seems like we have the basis for flat earth theory.
The only "crap" I see here are the bad arguments which do not address the subject matter.
Further reading on the Dutch astronomer, Ole Roemer, shows that Hickrich incorrectly cites Roemers data as 16.5 minutes.
From http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/mop/files/2018/07/Chapter-2.pdf --
p.6
Then, in 1675, Ole Roemer determined from observations of eclipses and transits that the events seen near opposition occur earlier than average, while those seen far from opposition occur later. He connected the observed differences in timing o f the eclipse events to the differing distance of Jupiter from Earth , and correctly deduced that light propagates at a finite velocity, requiring some 16 minutes 26.6 seconds to cross one diameter of the Earth's orbit.
Other sources say 22 minutes: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5194/how-is-the-speed-of-light-calculated --
Ole observed the motions of Jupiter and one of its moons, Io. Noting discrepancies in the apparent period of Io's orbit, Rømer calculated that light takes about 22 minutes to traverse the diameter of Earth's orbit.[4]
The argument in the book applies either way, to either number.
Whose fault is it for astronomers being unable to keep their numbers consistent in their writings? Perhaps an underhanded attempt to change history to get the number closer to their desired result?
In fact, Roemer's observations had nothing to do with astronomical distances or the speed of light. That was not his intention in observing Jupiter. He never published a value for the speed of light
The book doesn't say that he did.
-
The fact is that I can quote any number of sources on the web or books that quote a figure for the size and distance of Jupiter but Tom will only accept evidence from a single source that happens to agree with his beliefs on the subject. Is that the zetetic way?
The fact is Tom whether you wish to accept it or not that the distance, size, mass, density and whatever data you wish to think of about Jupiter and all the other planets is well known and has been determined to high levels of accuracy. That is cold, hard, simple fact. So please do not dictate to me or anybody else what constitutes evidence or not. Presently all you are doing is accepting as evidence that happens to agree with you. That is NOT evidence. I have nothing more to prove here and so my contributions are complete.
-
The question I had when making this post was essentially "How do flat earthers explain the rotation of Jupiter and the orbit of it's moons?".
Tom has yet again hijacked a thread with red herrings, this time with an evidence-less book he suggests reading that supposedly proves that we don't know the actual size of Jupiter, something that is actually irrelevant to the OP and, again, lacks any evidence to support it's claims in the first place.
-
The fact is that I can quote any number of sources on the web or books that quote a figure for the size and distance of Jupiter but Tom will only accept evidence from a single source that happens to agree with his beliefs on the subject. Is that the zetetic way?
To demonstrate and to seek only by inquiry is the "zetetic way," and the subject matter of the book which goes into the validity of those numbers is far more demonstrative than just posting the numbers themselves.
If you are going to insist on a number in a book, and wish to look no further, then why are you even here? Find a book that will tell you that the earth is round and stop bothering us.
-
The question I had when making this post was essentially "How do flat earthers explain the rotation of Jupiter and the orbit of it's moons?".
Tom has yet again hijacked a thread with red herrings, this time with an evidence-less book he suggests reading that supposedly proves that we don't know the actual size of Jupiter, something that is actually irrelevant to the OP and, again, lacks any evidence to support it's claims in the first place.
Yes, the essence of the matter, "How do flat earthers explain the rotation of Jupiter and the orbit of it's moons?" has devolved into an examination of a fringe book from 100 years ago purporting that all astronomical measurements are incorrect. Which doesn't even remotely address the question at hand. So if we are to rely on this book as Tom wishes us to do, the question is, how does it, the book, the one cited as evidence of something, address "What drives the orbit of the moons if not gravity? What casts the shadow on the planet if not the moons coming between Jupiter and the sun?"
-
The fact is that I can quote any number of sources on the web or books that quote a figure for the size and distance of Jupiter but Tom will only accept evidence from a single source that happens to agree with his beliefs on the subject. Is that the zetetic way?
To demonstrate and to seek only by inquiry is the "zetetic way," and the subject matter of the book which goes into the validity of those numbers is far more demonstrative than just posting the numbers themselves.
If you are going to insist on a number in a book, and wish to look no further, then why are you even here? Find a book that will tell you that the earth is round and stop bothering us.
Why do you think this book is correct and recent measurements are wrong?
-
The fact is that I can quote any number of sources on the web or books that quote a figure for the size and distance of Jupiter but Tom will only accept evidence from a single source that happens to agree with his beliefs on the subject. Is that the zetetic way?
To demonstrate and to seek only by inquiry is the "zetetic way," and the subject matter of the book which goes into the validity of those numbers is far more demonstrative than just posting the numbers themselves.
If you are going to insist on a number in a book, and wish to look no further, then why are you even here? Find a book that will tell you that the earth is round and stop bothering us.
Why do you think this book is correct and recent measurements are wrong?
The book is correct because the author is showing us that the "triangulation" used does not make a triangle. See p. 18.
-
The fact is that I can quote any number of sources on the web or books that quote a figure for the size and distance of Jupiter but Tom will only accept evidence from a single source that happens to agree with his beliefs on the subject. Is that the zetetic way?
To demonstrate and to seek only by inquiry is the "zetetic way," and the subject matter of the book which goes into the validity of those numbers is far more demonstrative than just posting the numbers themselves.
If you are going to insist on a number in a book, and wish to look no further, then why are you even here? Find a book that will tell you that the earth is round and stop bothering us.
Why do you think this book is correct and recent measurements are wrong?
The book is correct because the author is showing us that the "triangulation" used does not make a triangle. See p. 18.
It's quite the stretch to just come right out and say "the book is correct because..." But fine, whatever. You still haven't addressed, at all, the OP and page 18 of your book doesn't do so either, if it, in fact, addresses anything. But that aside.
The OP is: "How do flat earthers explain the rotation of Jupiter and the orbit of it's moons?" Not their distance from earth, nor their size as you keep trying to argue with your book.
In FET, what causes Jupiter to rotate and it's moons to orbit around it?
-
Tom, using two points on earth to figure out the distance to another planet won't work, you'd need to use separate points of reference, for example you can work out the distance to the sun using Earth, Venus and the Sun. Using Earth, Earth and the Sun at the same time won't suffice (you could use earth twice if you wait maybe half an orbit(6 months) I suppose). Using earth as two points in a triangle at the same time is a flawed method and no one would or should use it to work out distances to planets.
At any rate we can now use radio signals to determine distances of planets, since we know how fast radio waves travel. Why ignore such technology?
-
Well Tom has clearly set his heart on accepting the evidence in a single very obscure book written over a century ago so whatever makes him happy. I have set out my case more than clearly enough so I can say no more on that. Tom is very selective about what evidence he accepts as valid but I suppose he is left with little choice when there is so little evidence out there to back up his own opinion on something.
You could even use the satellites of Jupiter to calculate distance because the speed of light was measured that way. If we know the speed (c) and we know the time difference between when a predicted occultation or transit or eclipse is due to happen and when it is actually observed then you can work out the distance from that. The time difference varies according to the distance between Earth and Jupiter.
-
Speaking of the speed of light, is that not an accepted value by FE theory, as well?
-
Probably not but then the speed of light is possibly one of the most highly tested and measured constants in the whole of physics so if they want to argue about that as well then I wish them the best of luck.
-
The fact is that I can quote any number of sources on the web or books that quote a figure for the size and distance of Jupiter but Tom will only accept evidence from a single source that happens to agree with his beliefs on the subject. Is that the zetetic way?
To demonstrate and to seek only by inquiry is the "zetetic way," and the subject matter of the book which goes into the validity of those numbers is far more demonstrative than just posting the numbers themselves.
If you are going to insist on a number in a book, and wish to look no further, then why are you even here? Find a book that will tell you that the earth is round and stop bothering us.
Why do you think this book is correct and recent measurements are wrong?
The book is correct because the author is showing us that the "triangulation" used does not make a triangle. See p. 18.
It's quite the stretch to just come right out and say "the book is correct because..." But fine, whatever. You still haven't addressed, at all, the OP and page 18 of your book doesn't do so either, if it, in fact, addresses anything. But that aside.
A well known and time worn and tested method (still utilized by current surveyors) in assessing height of objects above the surface of the Earth is suddenly qualified as, "...quite the stretch..."?
The OP is: "How do flat earthers explain the rotation of Jupiter and the orbit of it's moons?"
It might perhaps be helpful for the OP to explain how the object known as Jupiter is related to the flat earth and its inhabitants.
In FET, what causes Jupiter to rotate and it's moons to orbit around it?
How do you know Jupiter is rotating, for one, and how do you know it has moons orbiting around it?
-
How do I know Jupiter is rotating? Because I have seen it rotating through my telescopes. I take it you don't have a telescope then otherwise you would be able to see the same thing I do. I can send you images of the red spot moving across the disk if you wish. Not a problem for me. Images that I took by the way with my own equipment with no funding (sadly!) from NASA.
-
How do I know Jupiter is rotating? Because I have seen it rotating through my telescopes. I take it you don't have a telescope then otherwise you would be able to see the same thing I do.
You beat me to the answer, I was about to literally write "because telescopes exist". We can observe these things using telescopes, of which aren't digital or programmed instruments so we can't be lied to through such technology.
-
Sorry Chris! If totallackey is interested the telescope I used was an TEC200 fluorite which is an 8" f7 refractor. Also used a ZWOASI174 mono camera with RGB filters.
-
I also used telescopes to observe the crash of Comet Shoemaker/Levy 9 into Jupiter back in July 1994. That was amazing to see the black spots (impact sites) start to appear in a line along one of the cloudbelts exactly on cue.
These impacts were just a blemish to Jupiter but had they hit Earth we might not have been here to tell the story anymore. Jupiter has over 60 satellites altogether. No doubt captured asteroids or comets due to being sucked in by Jupiters strong gravity.
-
How do I know Jupiter is rotating? Because I have seen it rotating through my telescopes. I take it you don't have a telescope then otherwise you would be able to see the same thing I do. I can send you images of the red spot moving across the disk if you wish. Not a problem for me. Images that I took by the way with my own equipment with no funding (sadly!) from NASA.
You see a red spot on the surface of any object and come to the conclusion that because you see the red spot moving the object must be moving?
I find this conclusion to be highly dubious.
I have observed Jupiter through a telescope in my astronomy class while in college. I wasn't able to ascertain any rotation.
Further, I doubt you are in possession of a 30K USD instrument of any form and fashion.
-
Find a book that will tell you that the earth is round and stop bothering us.
Would you accept a single book that shows that the earth is round?
-
A well known and time worn and tested method (still utilized by current surveyors) in assessing height of objects above the surface of the Earth is suddenly qualified as, "...quite the stretch..."?
Yes, much like when a few of us used your method of measuring the distance to the sun a few months back and all got radically different results. Based upon that I would hardly take your word for how to measure anything.
It might perhaps be helpful for the OP to explain how the object known as Jupiter is related to the flat earth and its inhabitants.
That's the question for FET. If in FET all of the celestial bodies hover over the flat earth approximately 3000+ miles high, what is causing jupiter to rotate and what is causing its moons to rotate around it? RET has an explanation, we await FET's.
How do you know Jupiter is rotating, for one, and how do you know it has moons orbiting around it?
Does the spot pac-man, magically disappearing on one side then at an interval magically appearing on the other? Hardly seems logical nor realistic.
How do I know Jupiter is rotating? Because I have seen it rotating through my telescopes. I take it you don't have a telescope then otherwise you would be able to see the same thing I do. I can send you images of the red spot moving across the disk if you wish. Not a problem for me. Images that I took by the way with my own equipment with no funding (sadly!) from NASA.
You see a red spot on the surface of any object and come to the conclusion that because you see the red spot moving the object must be moving?
I find this conclusion to be highly dubious.
I have observed Jupiter through a telescope in my astronomy class while in college. I wasn't able to ascertain any rotation.
Further, I doubt you are in possession of a 30K USD instrument of any form and fashion.
Just because you weren't able to ascertain any rotation is hardly an argument against the the many, many who have and do. Coupled with what has been proven to be your somewhat suspect observational skills, I find you assertion dubious at best.
Further, one does not have to "possess" a telescope, one may simply peer through one of any quality or price given access.
-
How do I know Jupiter is rotating? Because I have seen it rotating through my telescopes. I take it you don't have a telescope then otherwise you would be able to see the same thing I do. I can send you images of the red spot moving across the disk if you wish. Not a problem for me. Images that I took by the way with my own equipment with no funding (sadly!) from NASA.
You see a red spot on the surface of any object and come to the conclusion that because you see the red spot moving the object must be moving?
I find this conclusion to be highly dubious.
I have observed Jupiter through a telescope in my astronomy class while in college. I wasn't able to ascertain any rotation.
Further, I doubt you are in possession of a 30K USD instrument of any form and fashion.
How are you coming to the conclusion that shootingstar doesn't have access to a 30K USD instrument of any form and fashion? In my field of work (which has nothing to do with astronomy) I am in possession of equipment worth well over $300K USD. But, it seems par for the course to be making conclusions without knowing the facts first.
-
Further, I doubt you are in possession of a 30K USD instrument of any form and fashion.
You are right I don't personally own that one but a friend of mine (who paid a lot less than 30K USD for it) who lives just a few miles away does and he is more than happy to let me use it any time I wish. My own scope only cost me £2k but it is more than good enough. In any case you cannot prove what I have or what I don't have unless you have made your own mind up about that just like you do everything else. I would be more than happy to show you fine details on Jupiter if I possibly could. I am not biased or fussy about who I show the beauty of the heaven to. It is then up to them to make up their own mind about what they accept as real or not.
What kind of telescope did you use in your astronomy class? I might be able to explain why you didn't see any detail that time round. You do have to make sure the telescope is focused of course before you can see anything properly.
-
The fact is that I can quote any number of sources on the web or books that quote a figure for the size and distance of Jupiter but Tom will only accept evidence from a single source that happens to agree with his beliefs on the subject. Is that the zetetic way?
To demonstrate and to seek only by inquiry is the "zetetic way," and the subject matter of the book which goes into the validity of those numbers is far more demonstrative than just posting the numbers themselves.
If you are going to insist on a number in a book, and wish to look no further, then why are you even here? Find a book that will tell you that the earth is round and stop bothering us.
Why do you think this book is correct and recent measurements are wrong?
The book is correct because the author is showing us that the "triangulation" used does not make a triangle. See p. 18.
It's quite the stretch to just come right out and say "the book is correct because..." But fine, whatever. You still haven't addressed, at all, the OP and page 18 of your book doesn't do so either, if it, in fact, addresses anything. But that aside.
A well known and time worn and tested method (still utilized by current surveyors) in assessing height of objects above the surface of the Earth is suddenly qualified as, "...quite the stretch..."?
The OP is: "How do flat earthers explain the rotation of Jupiter and the orbit of it's moons?"
It might perhaps be helpful for the OP to explain how the object known as Jupiter is related to the flat earth and its inhabitants.
In FET, what causes Jupiter to rotate and it's moons to orbit around it?
How do you know Jupiter is rotating, for one, and how do you know it has moons orbiting around it?
Look in the sky with a good pair of binoculars or better yet a cheap telescope and you can watch the planet Jupiter rotate, and witness with your own eyes the moons orbit and cast shadows on the planet.
Don't believe me, do it yourself.
I can link some really good beginner telescopes to get you started.
-
How do I know Jupiter is rotating? Because I have seen it rotating through my telescopes. I take it you don't have a telescope then otherwise you would be able to see the same thing I do. I can send you images of the red spot moving across the disk if you wish. Not a problem for me. Images that I took by the way with my own equipment with no funding (sadly!) from NASA.
You see a red spot on the surface of any object and come to the conclusion that because you see the red spot moving the object must be moving?
I find this conclusion to be highly dubious.
I have observed Jupiter through a telescope in my astronomy class while in college. I wasn't able to ascertain any rotation.
Further, I doubt you are in possession of a 30K USD instrument of any form and fashion.
You see a spot on the surface of the object rotate around the circular surface, then come back into view every ~10 hours or so, regularly, on a loop, as if it's rotating. Yea, dubious conclusion, sure.
You looked at jupiter for a few minutes with a telescope years ago while not looking for anything in particular, I'm sure you gathered tons of data.
You don't need a $30k piece of equipment to view these things, although if you use google, you may find a local astronomy club with members who do have this equipment. I'm sure they'd love to let you use it.
-
Of course they will. That is what local astronomy clubs are for. I realise I am not talking to fellow astronomers here but I can only describe my experiences and what I have seen over the years. I have spoken to many, many people who haven't the first idea what you can see through telescopes. People who are not used to using them very rarely see what I do because they don't really know that they are looking for.
Imaging has really come to the fore over the last few years and now the Internet and magazines are plastered full of brilliant colour images planets, galaxies and nebulae. Astronomy has become form of art as well as a science. To take hi res images of Jupiter or any of the planets for that matter you need a telescope and camera combo which gives you a decent image scale scale so that small details come out. You need to take into consideration the telescope focal length, the number of pixels on the camera sensor and the pixel size. The best images are taken with optical systems with effective focal ratios between F20 and F30. My scope has a focal length of 2000mm so for a 10" telescope that means 2000/250mm = F8. So I need to use a a 2.5x barlow to get into the F20-30 bracket.
Once you achieve that you get an image scale on Jupiter that allows the fine details to pop out under steady seeing conditions and capture the satellites as they pass in front of or behind the disk. The telescope turns what looks like just a bright star in the sky to the naked eye into a mini solar system. And yes you are right Jimmy, personally I have gathered gigabytes of data from Jupiter videos over the years. Best to use a high frame rate camera (60-100fps) and then capture say 2000-3000 frames over a 120sec period max. Then align and stack the still frames from the video using Registax and similar. More than 120sec per video and you get blurring of the disk detail due to Jupiters rotation. A program called WinJupos incorporates a derotation feature to correct this.
-
Of course they will. That is what local astronomy clubs are for. I realise I am not talking to fellow astronomers here
Do your fellow astronomers also point at numbers in a book as their proof while refusing to discuss the validity of the method to get those numbers?
-
Don't think so Tom no. We use numbers all the time but not in the context of needing to prove anything to ourselves. For instance we know the Jovian longitude of the GRS and sources such as the BAA handbook quotes the longitude of the visible central meridian of Jupiters disk at any one time as seen from Earth. We can then use that to determine whether or not we will see the GRS for the time we are observing.
-
Don't think so Tom no. We use numbers all the time but not in the context of needing to prove anything to ourselves.
So you admit to astronomers being uninterested in truth then?
-
What truth would that be then?
-
What truth would that be then?
The continual validation and revalidation of astronomy. Astronomy is alleged to be a science. Yet you admit to astronomers being uninterested in discussion, validation, and checks of basic knowledge.
-
What truth would that be then?
The continual validation and revalidation of astronomy. Astronomy is alleged to be a science. Yet you admit to astronomers being uninterested in discussion, validation, and checks of basic knowledge.
That's a bit ironic considering how your flawless source of everything flat-earth is a book that's almost 140 years old.
-
Almost missed a trick there didn't I Tom with your last comment about the truth. To quote Jack Nicholson I think it was from a famous film of his also starring Tom Cruise... "You can't handle the truth!..."
-
What truth would that be then?
The continual validation and revalidation of astronomy. Astronomy is alleged to be a science. Yet you admit to astronomers being uninterested in discussion, validation, and checks of basic knowledge.
That's a bit ironic considering how your flawless source of everything flat-earth is a book that's almost 140 years old.
The Flat Earth movement has been performing continuous validation and checks of Earth Not a Globe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipDfJwkmkj8
Where can we see similar independent validation and checks for the claims of astronomy?
-
Yeah, I got one of those, too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnTsIVYxYkc
Regarding Jupiter, which one is it, guys? You can't seem to agree on planets. Who will concede? Sandokhan, or the others?
If the planets are round, why isn't the Earth?
The 2007 retrograde of Mars. Retrograde motion occurs from the fact that the planets are revolving around the sun while the sun itself moves around the hub of the earth. This particular path the planets take makes it appear as if several of them make a loop along their journeys across the night sky.
Planets (from Ancient Greek ἀστὴρ πλανήτης [astēr planētēs, "wandering star"], or just πλανήτης [planḗtēs, "wanderer"]) are orbiting astronomical objects. The Earth is not a planet by definition, as it sits at the center of our solar system above which the planets and the Sun revolve. The earths uniqueness, fundamental differences and centrality makes any comparison to other nearby celestial bodies insufficient - Like comparing basketballs to the court on which they bounce.
Other planets/moons are not flat
Here is an answer to that question:
Q. If the planets are round, why isn't the earth?
A. The earth is not a planet. The earth very large and unlike the characteristics of the wandering stars called "planets" in numerous ways. This is like asking why basketballs are round, but not the basketball court. The basketball court is a fundamentally different kind of entity than the small balls which may bounce upon its surface.
Jupiter has the same diameter as that of the Moon, Sun, Black Sun, Shadow Moon.
Its shape is discoidal, it is the layers of clouds which rotate above its surface.
-
I don't see any similar independent validation and checks for the claims of astronomy. It appears that you guys don't care about validation or inquiry at all.
-
Don't think so Tom no. We use numbers all the time but not in the context of needing to prove anything to ourselves. For instance we know the Jovian longitude of the GRS and sources such as the BAA handbook quotes the longitude of the visible central meridian of Jupiters disk at any one time as seen from Earth. We can then use that to determine whether or not we will see the GRS for the time we are observing.
Those are all based upon angular measurements, not direct measurements of distance to Jupiter or the dimensions of Jupiter. You need theory to bridge the gap between angular measurements and tangible measurements.
-
I don't see any similar independent validation and checks for the claims of astronomy. It appears that you guys don't care about validation or inquiry at all.
We do, otherwise why would the question be raised in the OP that has yet to be addressed from an FE perspective:
"How are these observations explained on a flat earth? What drives the orbit of the moons if not gravity? What casts the shadow on the planet if not the moons coming between Jupiter and the sun?"
-
"How are these observations explained on a flat earth? What drives the orbit of the moons if not gravity? What casts the shadow on the planet if not the moons coming between Jupiter and the sun?"
Unknown. Possibly electromagnetic fields. Not germane to shape of Earth.
-
I don't see any similar independent validation and checks for the claims of astronomy. It appears that you guys don't care about validation or inquiry at all.
How many astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists and similar folk do you think there are in the world, Tom?
-
I don't see any similar independent validation and checks for the claims of astronomy. It appears that you guys don't care about validation or inquiry at all.
How many astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists and similar folk do you think there are in the world, Tom?
Certainly far more than the number of Flat Earthers. The number of amateur astronomers boasts in the hundreds of thousands to 1 million+, in fact Yet none appear interested in discussion or validation of the claims of astronomy. Look at the dancing around of the issue that the methods of triangulation in astronomy are invalid in this thread, for example.
-
I don't see any similar independent validation and checks for the claims of astronomy. It appears that you guys don't care about validation or inquiry at all.
How many astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists and similar folk do you think there are in the world, Tom?
Certainly far more than the number of Flat Earthers. The number of amateur astronomers boasts in the hundreds of thousands to 1 million+, in fact Yet none appear interested in discussion or validation of the claims of astronomy. Look at the dancing around of the issue that the methods of triangulation in astronomy are invalid in this thread, for example.
I would imagine there's a fair amount of discussion and validation of the claims of astronomy in any university astronomy and astrophysics classroom. Do you really think they're just a bunch of sheep that will take what's fed to them without any critical thinking?
And how about Jupiter's discoid shape, Tom? Do you agree or disagree with Sandokhan that Jupiter is discoid?
-
I don't see any similar independent validation and checks for the claims of astronomy. It appears that you guys don't care about validation or inquiry at all.
How many astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists and similar folk do you think there are in the world, Tom?
Certainly far more than the number of Flat Earthers. The number of amateur astronomers boasts in the hundreds of thousands to 1 million+, in fact Yet none appear interested in discussion or validation of the claims of astronomy. Look at the dancing around of the issue that the methods of triangulation in astronomy are invalid in this thread, for example.
Tom,
At some point you have to be able to accept something as true. Jupiter's moons is something that has been discussed, analyzed, photographed, looked at, and calculated for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years. I've never been to the pyramids but enough people have been there, enough papers have been written about them, and there is enough photographic and video evidence that I believe they do exist.
Much like I believe that the pyramids do exist I also believe there is a planet in our solar system called Jupiter and Jupiter does have moons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moons_of_Jupiter
Much like the Pythagorean theorem. If you could disprove it you would get fame, fortune, and accolades as the greatest mathematician who ever walked the earth. I'm guessing you are able to accept this as true because this theorem has been discussed, analyzed, photographed, looked at, and calculated for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years.
I would imagine there's a fair amount of discussion and validation of the claims of astronomy in any university astronomy and astrophysics classroom. Do you really think they're just a bunch of sheep that will take what's fed to them without any critical thinking?
And how about Jupiter's discoid shape, Tom? Do you agree or disagree with Sandokhan that Jupiter is discoid?
Bad Puppy,
This is a common Tom response. Someone could claim that a mile is 5280 feet in a mile and tom would ask for the worldwide mile study showing that, for all locations and altitudes on earth, a mile was ALWAYS 5280 feet.
Here's an example: Someone claims something like the sun passes over the the equator on the equinox and over the tropic of cancer/Capricorn during the solstice. These events are common knowledge. They have been investigated, calculated for hundreds and hundreds of years. At locations on the equator and on the tropic lines hundreds of thousands of people document the path of the sun, there are photographs, pictures, videos, papers published etc. In spite of all of this:
Just link us to the documents for the world-wide sun observation project which the calculators are (hopefully) based on. What is so flipping difficult about that?
Tom asks for a world wide sun observation project.
Did timeanddate.com send agents to every point on earth to carefully document the activities and actions of the sun throughout the year?
Tom asks for a documentation to every point on earth where the the actions of the sun were documented all throughout the year.
-
I would imagine there's a fair amount of discussion and validation of the claims of astronomy in any university astronomy and astrophysics classroom. Do you really think they're just a bunch of sheep that will take what's fed to them without any critical thinking?
Have you taken a course in astronomy in college? That's exactly how it works. Questioning is not encouraged.
At some point you have to be able to accept something as true. Jupiter's moons is something that has been discussed, analyzed, photographed, looked at, and calculated for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years.
We read the book and found that the methods were flawed. If you believe that the methods are accurate then defend the topic.
Much like the Pythagorean theorem. If you could disprove it you would get fame, fortune, and accolades as the greatest mathematician who ever walked the earth.
That is false. If you question, disprove, or criticize you are either mocked or ignored.
-
I would imagine there's a fair amount of discussion and validation of the claims of astronomy in any university astronomy and astrophysics classroom. Do you really think they're just a bunch of sheep that will take what's fed to them without any critical thinking?
Have you taken a course in astronomy in college? That's exactly how it works. Questioning is not encouraged.
What's that supposed to mean? It's up to the student to be proactive and ask questions. Are you suggesting that they actively discourage questioning in astronomy classes? Did you take an astronomy course and had your questions denied? Or did you just not like the answers because they went against your beliefs?
And again, your view on Jupiter.....flat or not? Simple question. I'll start. I think it's round.
-
We read the book and found that the methods were flawed. If you believe that the methods are accurate then defend the topic.
What book? There are litereally hundreds and hundreds of books, websites, videos, photographs about the existence of Jupiter and its moons. How many books are there saying that Jupiter does not exist? Or that it does exist but does not have moons?
That is false. If you question, disprove, or criticize you are either mocked or ignored.
This depends on what you question or criticize.
Albert Einstein won fame and fortune for showing that light was composed of tiny particles call photons. Disproving the idea that light only functioned as a wave.
If you claim to disprove that 1 + 1 = 2 or claim to prove that the moon does not exist that's a totally different story.
I have never mocked you. I have never ignored you. I have, on many occasions, defended your viewpoints or pointed out that your concerns are valid and warrant consideration.
-
What book? There are litereally hundreds and hundreds of books, websites, videos, photographs about the existence of Jupiter and its moons. How many books are there saying that Jupiter does not exist? Or that it does exist but does not have moons?
You've either just outed yourself as a dishonest person arguing in bad faith (nobody has questioned the existence of Jovian satellites or of Jupiter) or have terrible reading comprehension.
-
Tom,
Have you taken a course on astronomy to know that questioning is discouraged or not acceptable? I want to know what class, who the professor was, and what college. Otherwise you are either making a baseless claim, or claim based upon someone's unverified opinion.
I am not an astronomer or have I taken astronomy. But, I did attend a world class engineering college that had it's own observatory. Questioning was highly encouraged in all of the clashes that I took. In fact, if no one asked questions, the professors would make a point of having the class ask questions so he/she knew the class understood the material.
-
I would imagine there's a fair amount of discussion and validation of the claims of astronomy in any university astronomy and astrophysics classroom. Do you really think they're just a bunch of sheep that will take what's fed to them without any critical thinking?
Have you taken a course in astronomy in college? That's exactly how it works. Questioning is not encouraged.
What's that supposed to mean? It's up to the student to be proactive and ask questions. Are you suggesting that they actively discourage questioning in astronomy classes? Did you take an astronomy course and had your questions denied? Or did you just not like the answers because they went against your beliefs?
And again, your view on Jupiter.....flat or not? Simple question. I'll start. I think it's round.
If astronomers and astronomy teachers have answers to the arguments posed by Hickson, where are they? Most teachers just teach from the book, they probably wouldn't even have answers to questions that don't fit into that paradigm.
-
Why is this even an argument we need to consider? I've already shown that Hickson is dishonest by reporting the wrong numbers for Halley's diurnal method. And I confirmed with a childhood friend who is an exoplanetary scientist who stated that method is no longer used in calculating distances among astronomers who work as astronomers. It's used by amateurs (meaning the word as in not a paid job).
-
What book? There are litereally hundreds and hundreds of books, websites, videos, photographs about the existence of Jupiter and its moons. How many books are there saying that Jupiter does not exist? Or that it does exist but does not have moons?
You've either just outed yourself as a dishonest person arguing in bad faith (nobody has questioned the existence of Jovian satellites or of Jupiter) or have terrible reading comprehension.
My level of honesty or reading comprehension has nothing to do with the facts presented in my post. Thanks for pointing out that i'm a dishonest person with terrible reading comprehension. Any other insults you want to throw at me in the meantime?
-
The number of amateur astronomers boasts in the hundreds of thousands to 1 million+, in fact Yet none appear interested in discussion or validation of the claims of astronomy. Look at the dancing around of the issue that the methods of triangulation in astronomy are invalid in this thread, for example.
Why would there by any need to validate matters which have been repeatedly validated already?
You can't say "none" of these, when the only ones you've interacted with are the small subset who drop in here. Not a large enough sample size.
-
The continual validation and revalidation of astronomy. Astronomy is alleged to be a science. Yet you admit to astronomers being uninterested in discussion, validation, and checks of basic knowledge.
Why would anyone need or want to do this? When hundreds, possibly thousands, have already (for instance) timed the rotation of Jupiter, over many years, and found it to be a constant, why would there be any reason to check it again with any frequency?
Do mathematicians periodically check that 2+2 still equals 4?
Do physicists check again and again the speed of sound (outwith high-school classes, for educational purposes).
Do physicians verify periodically that the purpose of the heart is to pump blood around the body, or is that taken as read?
etc
etc
-
How do I know Jupiter is rotating? Because I have seen it rotating through my (emphasis mine) telescopes.
Further, I doubt you are in possession of a 30K USD instrument of any form and fashion.
You are right I don't personally own that one...
At this point I believe it is quite clear to all clear minded and objective persons you have nothing of use to offer the forum.
You are dishonest concerning the most basic of claims and it is evident you simply mime others believing that to be personal knowledge.
-
A well known and time worn and tested method (still utilized by current surveyors) in assessing height of objects above the surface of the Earth is suddenly qualified as, "...quite the stretch..."?
Yes, much like when a few of us used your method of measuring the distance to the sun a few months back and all got radically different results. Based upon that I would hardly take your word for how to measure anything.
Lemme get this straight...
The experiment I offered is accepted by you and your lot of RE adherents as being VALID when it comes to measuring the altitude of the ISS FOR ANYONE ON THE SURFACE OF THE FLAT EARTH PLAIN, yet invalid when it comes to measuring the altitude of the Sun over the surface of the flat earth plain...
Seems you have more to deal with than simple math and I cannot help it if you and your lot are incapable of performing quite simple tasks and coming to an accurate conclusion.
It might perhaps be helpful for the OP to explain how the object known as Jupiter is related to the flat earth and its inhabitants.
That's the question for FET. If in FET all of the celestial bodies hover over the flat earth approximately 3000+ miles high, what is causing jupiter to rotate and what is causing its moons to rotate around it? RET has an explanation, we await FET's.
You have yet to even prove Jupiter is rotating.
Everyone is aware of RET claiming to have all the answers.
Everyone is also now aware that RET adherents typically cannot be trusted to provide truthful answers concerning even current, earthly reality.
How do you know Jupiter is rotating, for one, and how do you know it has moons orbiting around it?
Does the spot pac-man, magically disappearing on one side then at an interval magically appearing on the other? Hardly seems logical nor realistic.
Good question.
What does happen to pac-man or Ms. pac-man when they leave your visual range?
They rotate, right?
How do I know Jupiter is rotating? Because I have seen it rotating through my telescopes. I take it you don't have a telescope then otherwise you would be able to see the same thing I do. I can send you images of the red spot moving across the disk if you wish. Not a problem for me. Images that I took by the way with my own equipment with no funding (sadly!) from NASA.
You see a red spot on the surface of any object and come to the conclusion that because you see the red spot moving the object must be moving?
I find this conclusion to be highly dubious.
I have observed Jupiter through a telescope in my astronomy class while in college. I wasn't able to ascertain any rotation.
Further, I doubt you are in possession of a 30K USD instrument of any form and fashion.
Just because you weren't able to ascertain any rotation is hardly an argument against the the many, many who have and do. Coupled with what has been proven to be your somewhat suspect observational skills, I find you assertion dubious at best.
Further, one does not have to "possess" a telescope, one may simply peer through one of any quality or price given access.
The claim was "...MY telescopes." Anyone who has the inability to state the true nature of reality here on Earth cannot be trusted to state the reality of things of a place where no one has been.
How is that for a no-nonsense observation.
-
I would imagine there's a fair amount of discussion and validation of the claims of astronomy in any university astronomy and astrophysics classroom. Do you really think they're just a bunch of sheep that will take what's fed to them without any critical thinking?
Have you taken a course in astronomy in college? That's exactly how it works. Questioning is not encouraged.
What's that supposed to mean? It's up to the student to be proactive and ask questions. Are you suggesting that they actively discourage questioning in astronomy classes? Did you take an astronomy course and had your questions denied? Or did you just not like the answers because they went against your beliefs?
And again, your view on Jupiter.....flat or not? Simple question. I'll start. I think it's round.
Ha! Took an astronomy class in college. I asked how it was demonstrably correct that stars are formed of gas. Instead of receiving an answer from the professor, I was mocked..."How could you ask such a stupid question?"
Never mind scientists continue to debate the reality of stars, just settle for the status quo and keep giving us your money.
-
Anecdotal evidence. That just demonstrates you had a crappy experience and a crappy professor. 1 instance is not substantial evidence to say all professors act this way.
-
Anecdotal evidence.
Anecdotal, according to you ≠ real evidence?
That just demonstrates you had a crappy experience and a crappy professor. 1 instance is not substantial evidence to say all professors act this way.
Many more instances I could personally offer; however, I never claimed my experience was all encompassing or even possible for others.
Individual results could vary, as they say on TV.
Do you have a meaningful point?
-
Carefully follow the thread. Tom made an assertion that questioning is actively discouraged. You responded to the whole thread, referencing the entire thread about questioning being discouraged as a general practice as asserted by Tom. You did not clarify that you were responding to any specific part of Bad Puppy's response. Therefore, you are offering it up as evidence that questioning in general is discouraged. Stop shifting context. If you meant it just as a response to one single question, you should have highlighted that question alone. See, I am helping you here by clarifying what point you are trying to make, and simultaneously using the same tactic that FEers typically use by stating, oh that's not real evidence. So is it evidence? You said no. So, actually what's your point? If its not evidence, then it is pointless and does nothing to further the current debate in this topic on whether or not astronomy professors actively discourage questioning in general.
-
Carefully follow the thread. Tom made an assertion that questioning is actively discouraged. You responded to the whole thread, referencing the entire thread about questioning being discouraged as a general practice as asserted by Tom. You did not clarify that you were responding to any specific part of Bad Puppy's response. Therefore, you are offering it up as evidence that questioning in general is discouraged. Stop shifting context. If you meant it just as a response to one single question, you should have highlighted that question alone. See, I am helping you here by clarifying what point you are trying to make, and simultaneously using the same tactic that FEers typically use by stating, oh that's not real evidence. So is it evidence? You said no. So, actually what's your point? If its not evidence, then it is pointless and does nothing to further the current debate in this topic on whether or not astronomy professors actively discourage questioning in general.
You are the one who shifted context.
Practice here is to include the post or specific line of posts to which one is specifically responding.
I did that.
Tom offered his experience and I offered my similar experience.
Neither Tom nor I claimed that experience we had would be all inclusive.
The disingenuous and dishonest characterization of these particular posts in response to my posts is glaring.
-
Totallackey and Tom you still have not answered the question posed by the OP. Anyone with a decent telescope costing a hundred dollars or more can see Jupiter’s red spot moving to the edge then it disappears for four hours and some minutes and appears again on the other side of it. The amount of time it is visible being near equal to the time it disappeared.
It has objects orbiting it (four big ones easily seen from Earth), we call them moons, you call them whatever you want. We also regularly see those objects cast shadows upon Jupiter. We can also watch those moons orbit with a time frame, even disappearing behind Jupiter to come out the other side. You both fail to address this as well.
There are millions of people with telescopes. It is a guarantee that all of them look at Jupiter and its four easily viewable moons. https://www.cloudynights.com/index Is one of many discussion forums about astrophotography with 800,000 plus member accounts. I think it is safe to say that millions of people have seen it rotating and taken millions of photos of it. Are you really telling us that images of Jupiter are questionable? Is https://www.cloudynights.com/index and its 800,000 members all government shills posting fake pictures of the cosmos?
-
Totallackey and Tom you still have not answered the question posed by the OP.
Hard to answer a question based on supposition.
Anyone with a decent telescope costing a hundred dollars or more can see Jupiter’s red spot moving to the edge then it disappears for four hours and some minutes and appears again on the other side of it. The amount of time it is visible being near equal to the time it disappeared.
As demonstrated earlier this is evidence a spot appears and disappears and not evidence of rotation.
It has objects orbiting it (four big ones easily seen from Earth), we call them moons, you call them whatever you want. We also regularly see those objects cast shadows upon Jupiter. We can also watch those moons orbit with a time frame, even disappearing behind Jupiter to come out the other side. You both fail to address this as well.
So, something disappears to where?
How do you know where they disappear to if you can no longer observe them?
There are millions of people with telescopes. It is a guarantee that all of them look at Jupiter and its four easily viewable moons.
Citation please.
://www.cloudynights.com/index Is one of many discussion forums about astrophotography with 800,000 plus member accounts. I think it is safe to say that millions of people have seen it rotating and taken millions of photos of it. Are you really telling us that images of Jupiter are questionable? Is https://www.cloudynights.com/index and its 800,000 members all government shills posting fake pictures of the cosmos?
Oh, so only 800 thousand accounts = millions...
Who said anything about fake pictures or shills?
-
Totallackey and Tom you still have not answered the question posed by the OP.
Hard to answer a question based on supposition.
Anyone with a decent telescope costing a hundred dollars or more can see Jupiter’s red spot moving to the edge then it disappears for four hours and some minutes and appears again on the other side of it. The amount of time it is visible being near equal to the time it disappeared.
As demonstrated earlier this is evidence a spot appears and disappears and not evidence of rotation.
It has objects orbiting it (four big ones easily seen from Earth), we call them moons, you call them whatever you want. We also regularly see those objects cast shadows upon Jupiter. We can also watch those moons orbit with a time frame, even disappearing behind Jupiter to come out the other side. You both fail to address this as well.
So, something disappears to where?
How do you know where they disappear to if you can no longer observe them?
There are millions of people with telescopes. It is a guarantee that all of them look at Jupiter and its four easily viewable moons.
Citation please.
://www.cloudynights.com/index Is one of many discussion forums about astrophotography with 800,000 plus member accounts. I think it is safe to say that millions of people have seen it rotating and taken millions of photos of it. Are you really telling us that images of Jupiter are questionable? Is https://www.cloudynights.com/index and its 800,000 members all government shills posting fake pictures of the cosmos?
Oh, so only 800 thousand accounts = millions...
Who said anything about fake pictures or shills?
So, basically, you have nothing as usual to add. You are seriously questioning if millions have looked through a telescope?
If you look at just cheap telescopes, Walmart alone sells well over 100,000 scopes a year. (4200 Walmart stores, you do the math) Meade sells 12 million dollars a year worth of entry level beginner telescopes and they are a distant number 3 telescope producer in the U.S. alone... Average price of a Meade beginner scope of $100 puts them at over 100,000 scopes a year.
A little math (common sense) shows millions of people have telescopes. Meade, Celestron, Orion sell around 10,000 serious telescopes a year capable of resolving nebulae, wide angle views of planets, etc. Those people have families, classrooms, etc who they share their serious hobby with I have no doubt. Yes, millions of people have easily looked through a scope and personally seen Jupiter.
-
We see phases of Jupiter, same as we do for the Moon, Venus and Mercury, but because it's further out than us, we see a limited range of them. This shows it to be spherical
Humankind has sent planetary probes to and past Jupiter and its Moons. These show various phases that we cannot see from Earth, and again shows it to be spherical
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, perhaps millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of astronomers have watched it and catalogued aspects of its appearance, behaviour, etc. None appear to have reached the conclusion it is anything other than spherical.
At some point you have to accumulate the balance of all the various evidence bases, and conclude that it all adds up to a spherical Jupiter, surely?
-
Totallackey and Tom you still have not answered the question posed by the OP.
Hard to answer a question based on supposition.
Anyone with a decent telescope costing a hundred dollars or more can see Jupiter’s red spot moving to the edge then it disappears for four hours and some minutes and appears again on the other side of it. The amount of time it is visible being near equal to the time it disappeared.
As demonstrated earlier this is evidence a spot appears and disappears and not evidence of rotation.
It has objects orbiting it (four big ones easily seen from Earth), we call them moons, you call them whatever you want. We also regularly see those objects cast shadows upon Jupiter. We can also watch those moons orbit with a time frame, even disappearing behind Jupiter to come out the other side. You both fail to address this as well.
So, something disappears to where?
How do you know where they disappear to if you can no longer observe them?
There are millions of people with telescopes. It is a guarantee that all of them look at Jupiter and its four easily viewable moons.
Citation please.
://www.cloudynights.com/index Is one of many discussion forums about astrophotography with 800,000 plus member accounts. I think it is safe to say that millions of people have seen it rotating and taken millions of photos of it. Are you really telling us that images of Jupiter are questionable? Is https://www.cloudynights.com/index and its 800,000 members all government shills posting fake pictures of the cosmos?
Oh, so only 800 thousand accounts = millions...
Who said anything about fake pictures or shills?
Not sure how to do individual quotes like that, so I’ll just do the whole thing at once.
The OP wasn’t based off of supposition. Anyone can see the evidence, without relying on the evil NASA.
You can see a spot appear and disappear in a rhythymic pattern, exactly what we would expect to see from a sphere rotating on an axis. My OP was to ask you to explain these phenomena under your flat earth model, not for you to just say “nuh uh” to established scientific knowledge. Give your hypothesis as to why the spots and bands and moons seemingly rotate at a regular rate.
800 thousand accounts on an astronomy forum. How many of these accounts have families? How many people with telescopes aren’t a part of the forum? I personally have two telescopes and I’m not a member of this forum. Do you think all the flat earthers are members of this forum, or a small minority? This clearly indicates there are millions of people who have looked into the sky with telescopes.
-
I would imagine there's a fair amount of discussion and validation of the claims of astronomy in any university astronomy and astrophysics classroom. Do you really think they're just a bunch of sheep that will take what's fed to them without any critical thinking?
Have you taken a course in astronomy in college? That's exactly how it works. Questioning is not encouraged.
What's that supposed to mean? It's up to the student to be proactive and ask questions. Are you suggesting that they actively discourage questioning in astronomy classes? Did you take an astronomy course and had your questions denied? Or did you just not like the answers because they went against your beliefs?
And again, your view on Jupiter.....flat or not? Simple question. I'll start. I think it's round.
Ha! Took an astronomy class in college. I asked how it was demonstrably correct that stars are formed of gas. Instead of receiving an answer from the professor, I was mocked..."How could you ask such a stupid question?"
Never mind scientists continue to debate the reality of stars, just settle for the status quo and keep giving us your money.
It just sounds like you had a bad professor, and that's unfortunate. I had astronomy in college too, and we also studied the composition of stars. But instead of telling us to accept it blindly, he said '...don't take my word for it. See for yourself'. Instead of barking the answers and telling us to fall in line, he taught us spectroscopy. We experimented with real elements and spectrographs. We split sunlight with prisms and saw the spectral lines.
Our only homework for the class was to come up with three new questions each day. Some questions were able to be answered thru experiments in class, but of course some weren't. But when we couldn't, it still wasn't just a blind-faith answer. It was explaining how the answers are derived, and giving examples of ways or places the experiments could actually be done (visit a radio telescope, commit to long term observations, etc.).
Again, I feel sorry for anyone who had a professor like you did. I really do. You really miss out on the true splendor of all this.
-
Carefully follow the thread. Tom made an assertion that questioning is actively discouraged. You responded to the whole thread, referencing the entire thread about questioning being discouraged as a general practice as asserted by Tom. You did not clarify that you were responding to any specific part of Bad Puppy's response. Therefore, you are offering it up as evidence that questioning in general is discouraged. Stop shifting context. If you meant it just as a response to one single question, you should have highlighted that question alone. See, I am helping you here by clarifying what point you are trying to make, and simultaneously using the same tactic that FEers typically use by stating, oh that's not real evidence. So is it evidence? You said no. So, actually what's your point? If its not evidence, then it is pointless and does nothing to further the current debate in this topic on whether or not astronomy professors actively discourage questioning in general.
You are the one who shifted context.
Practice here is to include the post or specific line of posts to which one is specifically responding.
I did that.
Tom offered his experience and I offered my similar experience.
Neither Tom nor I claimed that experience we had would be all inclusive.
The disingenuous and dishonest characterization of these particular posts in response to my posts is glaring.
Incorrect, Tom offered an assumption or claim that that is how astronomy classes work. He offered no studies with data and correlations. He didnt even offer a personal experience, aka anecdotal. I asked him for that evidence. He has not responded. You, however, offered your experience.
You are correct, anecdotal evidence is not valid. You can Google that. Or would you like me to provide mounds of sources that I will pull from Google to back that up?
-
I asked how it was demonstrably correct that stars are formed of gas
One way is to observe the spectrum of stars. You can create the emission spectra of various gases quite easily in any science lab by using gas tubes which glow. You then see the emission lines in the spectroscope which correspond to each gas. Each gas has its own unique line pattern. We can then see the same line patterns in the spectra of stars. For example A type stars show very strong hydrogen lines. I will assume you know what I mean by A type stars?
In other words you can demonstrate emission lines from different gases very easily and then show how those same lines at exactly the same wavelengths appear as absorption lines in stellar spectra. So not only can you show that stars are made up of gases but you can also show which gases are present in different stars.
-
Astronomical Spectroscopy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_spectroscopy
-
I would imagine there's a fair amount of discussion and validation of the claims of astronomy in any university astronomy and astrophysics classroom. Do you really think they're just a bunch of sheep that will take what's fed to them without any critical thinking?
Have you taken a course in astronomy in college? That's exactly how it works. Questioning is not encouraged.
What's that supposed to mean? It's up to the student to be proactive and ask questions. Are you suggesting that they actively discourage questioning in astronomy classes? Did you take an astronomy course and had your questions denied? Or did you just not like the answers because they went against your beliefs?
And again, your view on Jupiter.....flat or not? Simple question. I'll start. I think it's round.
Ha! Took an astronomy class in college. I asked how it was demonstrably correct that stars are formed of gas. Instead of receiving an answer from the professor, I was mocked..."How could you ask such a stupid question?"
Never mind scientists continue to debate the reality of stars, just settle for the status quo and keep giving us your money.
Seems like you're complaining about the rather poor education you received. Instead of constantly relaying the result of the less than adequate schooling you are suffering from perhaps you might provide some evidence as to why Jupiter does not appear to rotate yet it does for most everyone else.
-
While I cannot comment on any particular college teacher when I don't know them, there is a way of replying to a question and most teachers that I have spoken to would say there is no such thing as a stupid question.
I guess it depends on the level of the course. If I was taking a very basic, no previous knowledge assumed astronomy course, then I would say that was actually a very good question because very few people outside of physics and astronomy actually do realise that the Sun is a star. The uniqueness of the Sun in its appearance and size just comes down to it being so much closer.
On the other hand I am currently taking a BSc(Hons) degree course in Astronomy so I guess if I was to ask the same question I think there would be some serious concerns expressed by the course tutors as to whether I was on the right course!
-
On the other hand I am currently taking a BSc(Hons) degree course in Astronomy so I guess if I was to ask the same question I think there would be some serious concerns expressed by the course tutors as to whether I was on the right course!
Could you do an experiment and ask anyway? seriously. Ask your astronomy teacher the exact question in a serious tone, see what he says back then explain you were only asking to compare reactions to other teachers. Tell us how he replied to the question. :) My assumption is that he will answer logically or lead you to a way of finding out for yourself the answer... But he could also be a jerk and mock you. Who knows!
-
I could ask the teacher who helped me with my solar astrophysics module. The power source of stars was a relative unknown before the discovery of nuclear energy and that was less than a century ago. Before that it was a bit of a mystery how stars could maintain the same energy output (luminosity) for so long.
We have a different course tutor for each module studied. Each one has a slightly different specialty. For example the solar astrophysics was designed specifically to go into the physics that makes the Sun 'work' as it does quite deeply. Another course then extends those same principles to show how differing masses of stars affects the evolutionary cycle. Mass is everything in stars. There are more red dwarf stars than any other type. That's because they are like the dying embers of a fire which seem to go on forever compared with a blue supergiant for example which lives hard and dies young.
I won't go into it anymore cos this is not the place but I will certainly get in touch with the module tutor and ask the same question.