The methods of astronomy described in the book Kings Dethroned are still in use today. It goes over the 93 million mile sun, the 240 thousand mile moon, et cetera, that are all still the methods used today. Nothing about those methods in astronomy have changes since 1920; and so those depictions are still valid. Feel free to have a look.
Per the state of the wiki, we work on one subject at a time. If you do not have any constructive or contributive input then I will find that there is nothing to discuss with you
Again many thanks for the reference;
https://archive.org/details/kingsdethronedhi00hickrich/page/66
It’s difficult to know where to start as the whole content of the book can not really be taken seriously. I skimmed through it in disbelief. Though it does explain where yourself and other flat earth believers get not only their astronomical information from but their whole approach when dealing with scientific facts. Not wishing to appeal to authority, but in all honesty we have on the one hand the whole of modern science and on the other a badly written book by an obscure nobody written soon after the First World War. On the balance of probability who is more likely to be correct?
For example if pp 70-73 are read where he deals with the speed of light dismissing Einstein and a good deal of physics with a wave ofhis hand saying ‘so much for Einstein’s second law’
The book is no more than a pseudo scientific hatchet job using a series of baseless dismissals.
Can you honestly say that the speed and indeed the nature of of light has not been verified by experimentation time and time again? He did no experiments, conducted no science, instead all he did was write a series of chapters debunking the parts of science he didn’t like.
I’m really astonished how a whole belief system can be built on such dubious foundations. One would have to work really hard to swallow the contents of that book.
It isn't a baseless dismissal, it is a dismissal based upon a series of arguments and you haven't refuted any of the arguments: you're the one making the baseless dismissal. One doesn't necessarily need to conduct any experiments to dismiss Einstein's theories; one only needs to demonstrate logical contradictions or fallacies behind the theories.
Classic.
If you wish to use logic fine.
Let’s stand back a fair distance and examine the situation as though we are new to it and have no vested interest.
The Situation
A man in the early 1920, Gerard Hickson, neither scientist or astronomer wrote a book, dismissing the work of every notable astronomer to have lived along with the work of many notable men of science including Albert Einstein.
Almost 100 years later members of the FE society use this one book as a cornerstone of their beliefs.
Before and since then, possibly thousands of books and scientific papers have been written, many by Nobel prizewinners, whose findings contradict Mr. Gerard Hickson. There is an extensive network of ground based observatories around the planet that observe the heavens on a constant basis. Every observation ever done from these facilities disagree at a fundemental level with Hickson and his book. If interviewed every living astronomer would also disagree with Hickson. Walk into any astronomy class in any university in the world and what we would find being taught is very different from Hickson and his book.
Evidence
In the 1960s a direct measurement was made of the distance to Venus using radar. This measurement confirmed earlier distances which were made using observations. The known distance to Venus along with transit observations and measurements also confirmed the earlier Earth Sun distances.
Away from professionals to everyday people. In 2011 thousands of people all over the world took part in measuring the distance to the moon during a lunar eclipse using the “Shadow Transit Method” and the “Lunar Parallax Method”. None of the calculations done that evening agreed with Mr. Hickson.
The situation is no astronomer either in the past or present agree with Mr Hickson and his book. Is it likely That Hickson is right? Never mind the Chinese lander speeding toward the moon at this moment and the host of other satellites all in various orbits around different planets, moons and asteroids.
You brought logic into it. On the grounds of probability how likely is it for a single lone wolf like Hickson to be right given the overwhelming evidence against?
If this were a court of law, who would you put your money on being right, assuming all vested interests were laid to one side?