shootingstar

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #40 on: January 15, 2019, 11:31:28 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2019, 11:36:44 PM by shootingstar »

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #41 on: January 15, 2019, 11:36:06 PM »
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.
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #42 on: January 15, 2019, 11:37:55 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 12:46:32 AM by Tom Bishop »

shootingstar

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #43 on: January 15, 2019, 11:40:08 PM »
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?
« Last Edit: January 15, 2019, 11:42:37 PM by shootingstar »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #44 on: January 15, 2019, 11:49:09 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2019, 11:52:03 PM by Tom Bishop »

shootingstar

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #45 on: January 15, 2019, 11:55:36 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2019, 11:59:14 PM by shootingstar »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #46 on: January 15, 2019, 11:59:31 PM »
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 12:09:02 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #47 on: January 16, 2019, 12:08:18 AM »
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.
BobLawBlah.

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #48 on: January 16, 2019, 12:11:54 AM »
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.

Quote
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?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #49 on: January 16, 2019, 12:13:50 AM »
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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #50 on: January 16, 2019, 12:15:30 AM »
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 12:23:30 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #51 on: January 16, 2019, 12:16:54 AM »
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.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #52 on: January 16, 2019, 12:55:45 AM »
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..."

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #53 on: January 16, 2019, 01:23:31 AM »
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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #54 on: January 16, 2019, 01:35:15 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 01:41:41 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #55 on: January 16, 2019, 01:57:24 AM »
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?
« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 02:03:42 AM by WellRoundedIndividual »
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #56 on: January 16, 2019, 02:05:52 AM »
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 02:10:36 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #57 on: January 16, 2019, 02:30:17 AM »
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.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #58 on: January 16, 2019, 02:34:21 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 02:53:04 AM by WellRoundedIndividual »
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #59 on: January 16, 2019, 03:21:02 AM »
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.

Quote from: WellRoundedIndividual
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 --

Quote
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 --

Quote
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?

Quote from: WellRoundedIndividual
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.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 08:12:31 AM by Tom Bishop »