shootingstar

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #60 on: January 16, 2019, 06:45:52 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 06:51:12 AM by shootingstar »

Jimmy McGill

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #61 on: January 16, 2019, 07:11:38 AM »
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.


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #62 on: January 16, 2019, 08:18:00 AM »
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.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #63 on: January 16, 2019, 08:38:02 AM »
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?"

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #64 on: January 16, 2019, 08:39:19 AM »
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?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #65 on: January 16, 2019, 09:01:35 AM »
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.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #66 on: January 16, 2019, 10:31:49 AM »
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?

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 926
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #67 on: January 16, 2019, 11:17:00 AM »
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?
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

shootingstar

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #68 on: January 16, 2019, 12:17:00 PM »
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.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #69 on: January 16, 2019, 12:36:04 PM »
Speaking of the speed of light, is that not an accepted value by FE theory, as well?
BobLawBlah.

shootingstar

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #70 on: January 16, 2019, 12:39:49 PM »
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.

totallackey

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #71 on: January 16, 2019, 01:48:16 PM »
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?
« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 04:56:29 PM by totallackey »

shootingstar

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #72 on: January 16, 2019, 01:51:16 PM »
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.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 926
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #73 on: January 16, 2019, 01:52:53 PM »
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.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

shootingstar

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #74 on: January 16, 2019, 01:58:24 PM »
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.

shootingstar

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #75 on: January 16, 2019, 02:06:08 PM »
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.

« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 02:11:25 PM by shootingstar »

totallackey

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #76 on: January 16, 2019, 04:54:00 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 05:04:19 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline Bad Puppy

  • *
  • Posts: 219
  • Belief does not make something a theory.
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #77 on: January 16, 2019, 05:38:39 PM »
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?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
...circles do not exist and pi is not 3.14159...

Quote from: totallackey
Do you have any evidence of reality?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #78 on: January 16, 2019, 05:42:12 PM »
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.

*

Offline Bad Puppy

  • *
  • Posts: 219
  • Belief does not make something a theory.
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #79 on: January 16, 2019, 05:46:43 PM »
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.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
...circles do not exist and pi is not 3.14159...

Quote from: totallackey
Do you have any evidence of reality?