[shootingstar]

As someone who has been fascinated by astronomy and physics for a large part of my life I find the Stars page of FE wiki quite heavy reading. That being the case I should think that a lot of people with an interest in FET but less of a scientific mind would also find it somewhat confusing.


So I wonder if someone with the know how could perhaps simplify it a bit and also explain how the gradual change in star positions due to precession is explained in FET.  For example in 50,000 years or so, Polaris will no longer be the 'Pole Star' but Vega will instead.

Also this talk about the Sun circling the Earth in the way that FET talks about concerns me because we know it doesn't. The common barycentre is actually located at a point in space which lies within the volume of the Sun itself. FE people seem to think that changing nature and make the Sun orbit the Earth is acceptable in order to make it fit in with the theory they believe in rather than adapting their theory accordingly.

[edby]

As someone who has been fascinated by astronomy and physics for a large part of my life I find the Stars page of FE wiki quite heavy reading. That being the case I should think that a lot of people with an interest in FET but less of a scientific mind would also find it somewhat confusing.


So I wonder if someone with the know how could perhaps simplify it a bit and also explain how the gradual change in star positions due to precession is explained in FET.  For example in 50,000 years or so, Polaris will no longer be the 'Pole Star' but Vega will instead.

Also this talk about the Sun circling the Earth in the way that FET talks about concerns me because we know it doesn't. The common barycentre is actually located at a point in space which lies within the volume of the Sun itself. FE people seem to think that changing nature and make the Sun orbit the Earth is acceptable in order to make it fit in with the theory they believe in rather than adapting their theory accordingly.

It's useful to separate at least two things, namely (i) observations and (ii) explanations or models. An example of the first is that the sun rises and sets every day. An example of the second is the FE model that has the sun circling above a flat earth. (Other examples of the second are the Ptolemaic model of a celestial sphere circling an earth at the centre of the universe, or the Copernican theory of earth and planets circling round sun etc, but never mind).

Some way in between, but I will include under (i) are accounts of what the current mainstream scientific model states. These need to be both accurate and clear. I agree with you that these are rarely clear, moreover sometimes they are not accurate.

It's not a problem if the wiki gives its own interpretations of the observable facts, and that's the whole point. But it should be giving accurate and clear depictions of mainstream science.

Do you have examples of such depictions that fall from that standard, i.e. which are either inaccurate or unclear?

[edby]

The Stars page is here. It appears to have been started by someone called Daniel (Shenton?). It opens ‘The sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole.’ It’s not clear whether that means they appear to rotate, or whether they actually rotate in this way. They don’t in fact appear to rotate that way, so presumably the opening sentence is describing how FE models the observations.

It then says the cause of this rotation ‘is a vast cornucopia of stellar systems orbiting around its center of attraction - an imaginary point of shared attraction’, and that ‘each star in a cluster is attracted to one another through gravitational vectors. Formation is created through gravitational capture’. That’s broadly clear except we are lacking an explanation of why the whole system doesn’t collapse onto the common centre. We might conjecture Newtonian mechanics, but FE doesn’t like this.

Note that in this revision on 7 March 2012, Tom removed the statement implying that the model was ‘completely compliant with the Newtonian system’.

[EDIT] On the other hand, there is this strange statement

The stars maintain their movement over the years through Newton's first law: An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

This accepts Newtonian mechanics, but if Newtonian mechanics is correct, the rest of the stuff is incorrect. E.g. Newtonian mechanics doesn't say that circular motion is the most stable and perfect. Quite the opposite.

[shootingstar]

I think it widely enough known these days that the east to west motion of the sky that we see is due to the west to east direction of the rotating Earth. The seasons provide evidence of the axial tilt of the Earth and the movement of the Sun against the stars through the year provides evidence of the Earth orbiting the Sun.

The Ptolemaic model that you speak of was built on his interpretation of the motion of the heavens as he saw it. At the time he would have had no way of knowing the true reasons for the motions and so he would have had no reason to doubt his own observations. Gradually a better understanding developed and it became apparent that a simpler and more reliable way of explaining observed phenomenon in the sky could be made if the Earth was replaced by the Sun at the centre of the 'Universe'. This heliocentric model, first theorised by Aristarchus and later backed up by Copernicus was finally supported by observational evidence from the early 17th century onwards.

The point is that mainstream science continues to develop and build on accumulated knowledge and discoveries. Contrary to the popular view of FE supporters scientists are not inclined towards  faking things or misfeeding wrong information to the public. FET just seems to be fixed in the past and based largely on old interpretations that we know are wrong. 

[shootingstar]

is a vast cornucopia of stellar systems orbiting around its center of attractio

That I would take it is how FET defines a galaxy.

[edby]

I think it widely enough known these days that the east to west motion of the sky that we see is due to the west to east direction of the rotating Earth. The seasons provide evidence of the axial tilt of the Earth and the movement of the Sun against the stars through the year provides evidence of the Earth orbiting the Sun.

The Ptolemaic model that you speak of was built on his interpretation of the motion of the heavens as he saw it. At the time he would have had no way of knowing the true reasons for the motions and so he would have had no reason to doubt his own observations. Gradually a better understanding developed and it became apparent that a simpler and more reliable way of explaining observed phenomenon in the sky could be made if the Earth was replaced by the Sun at the centre of the 'Universe'. This heliocentric model, first theorised by Aristarchus and later backed up by Copernicus was finally supported by observational evidence from the early 17th century onwards.

The point is that mainstream science continues to develop and build on accumulated knowledge and discoveries. Contrary to the popular view of FE supporters scientists are not inclined towards  faking things or misfeeding wrong information to the public. FET just seems to be fixed in the past and based largely on old interpretations that we know are wrong.

Right, but this point will get you nowhere here. Best to focus on statements that verifiably misinterpret mainstream science, or which are demonstrably unclear.

Note there's a sort of rule here that if you make statements like 'mainstream science is correct' or 'FET is incorrect' when completely unsupported, you are liable to get warnings from the mods. It is perfectly OK to say 'mainstream science is correct here because of X', however.

[edby]

The Ptolemaic model that you speak of was built on his interpretation of the motion of the heavens as he saw it.

Sure, but I come back to my point that we shouldn't say stuff like 'mainstream science is correct'. Rather, mainstream science offers the best explanation for what we observe, where 'best' means the most simple or economical. Ptolemy's explanation works, if you put in enough epicycles, but it is far from simple. Newton's explanation, which is incredibly simple once you get past the maths, is elegant and economical, and Science prefers that.

The FE belief has no model at all, as far as I can see, but that's a separate question.

[shootingstar]

Further to that mainstream science also offers a lot of evidence which can be consistently verified, demonstrated and used to correctly predict future events. Science does not get things right all the time and doesn't have all the answers. That is what makes it what it is. Scientists like simplicity and the current laws of physics as we understand them provides that simplicity which applies equally not just here on Earth but everywhere in the Universe. 

The Steady State Theory was put foward as a possibly alternative to the Big Bang. However the Steady State Theory couldn't account for the CMB whereas the Big Bang Theory predicted both its existence and the wavelength/temperature at which it was found.  When the CMB was discovered in the 1960s exactly in accordance with prediction the SST was discarded.

[Tom Bishop]

I think the stars page should be deleted and rewritten at some point, mainly with evidence that the stars are close by.

There also needs to be less mention of a free-floating Newtonian multiple system, since it contradicts some of our other points about the n-body problems.

[stack]

I think the stars page should be deleted and rewritten at some point, mainly with evidence that the stars are close by.

What's the evidence for stars being close by?

[Tom Bishop]

Off the top of my head:

- The Airey's Failure experiment which shows that the stars are moving, not the earth

- Some stars seen to occasionally float in front of the moon (see recent transparent moon thread)

- Lack of parallax

- The content of Kings Dethroned book which mainly focuses on the incorrect assumptions of astronomy and the distance to the celestial bodies

Each of these articles is a project and every sentence and claim requires research and justification. Unfortunately there are only a few interested in contributing.

[stack]

Off the top of my head:

- The Airey's Failure experiment which shows that the stars are moving, not the earth

- Some stars seen to occasionally float in front of the moon (see recent transparent moon thread)

- Lack of parallax

- The content of Kings Dethroned book which mainly focuses on the incorrect assumptions of astronomy and the distance to the celestial bodies

Each of these articles is a project and every sentence and claim requires research and justification. Unfortunately there are only a few interested in contributing.

I hear you, that is a lot to suss out. I was just curious as to what the big hitters are.

Airey's failure should be interesting, hotly debated. Rope Sandokan into that one, a favorite of his. And yep, remember the transparent moon thread, not sure where that stands. Lack of Parallax I'm unfamiliar with, but will look into it. And yeah, not so sure about Kings Dethroned. We've gone through that to some degree and if memory serves, it's pretty fringe without much if any substantiation to his reasoning. But you can sort out that one.

[shootingstar]

Off the top of my head:

- The Airey's Failure experiment which shows that the stars are moving, not the earth
One persons 'failure' does not prove anything right or wrong.  Newton didn't belief that the colours he saw when passing sunlight through a glass prism were due to the nature of light itself

- Some stars seen to occasionally float in front of the moon (see recent transparent moon thread)
No they don't. Satellites do though

- Lack of parallax
Wrong...  Parallaxes have been measured for many stars, especially those 20 light years or closer

- The content of Kings Dethroned book which mainly focuses on the incorrect assumptions of astronomy and the distance to the celestial bodies
No idea about his but it sounds like one of your commonly used references from ancient times.

Each of these articles is a project and every sentence and claim requires research and justification. Unfortunately there are only a few interested in contributing.

[shootingstar]

I am still not sure what the motive is for the FET.  I have long been aware of the notion of flat Earth theories but I until recently I just assumed that such thoughts belonged back in the days gone by when no one really knew any better. I was quite intrigued when I found out that there are still people around in the developed world who still carry these beliefs with them.

So that led me to wonder whether the motive behind that was simply to rebel against certain sections of society or something else. Certainly many of the statements that FE believers come up with, and this is just a personal view, can only be described as ridiculous.

Evidence of us living on large globe is clearly presented to us for anyone who cares to watch the skies over a period of time. Of course how you interpret what you see is another matter.  You can either make your own interpretations based on what you see or form a judgement first and then try and make what you see fit in with that judgement. Whichever is easier is most likely to be correct.

[edby]

- Lack of parallax

That's interesting, as historically the lack of parallax was the reason astronomers thought the stars were a very very long way away.

This book is a fascinating read

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Parallax-Measure-Alan-W-Hirshfeld/dp/0716737116

[shootingstar]

Precisely.  Parallax angles are always small and astronomers use the widest baseline possible which is the Earths orbit.  That in itself will cause FE believers a problem because they don't believe the Earth moves in space.  Beyond the parallax limit other methods are used such as period/luminosity plotting in the case of Cepheid variables. 

[AATW]

- Lack of parallax

This is a weird one because it's wrong in so many ways. Well, 2 really.
Firstly, a lack of significant parallax would indicate distant stars, not close ones.
I have said on here multiple times that were the sun, moon and stars as close as you suppose then you could easily measure the distance using parallax with viewers taking observations at different locations.
Secondly, although the parallax is small, there is some and it is used to determine the distance of some stars

https://www.space.com/30417-parallax.html

[edby]

I have said on here multiple times that were the sun, moon and stars as close as you suppose then you could easily measure the distance using parallax with viewers taking observations at different locations.

Or merely by viewers waiting while some constellation rotates around Polaris. When the constellation is above my head and South of Polaris,it will be closer than when it rotates beyond and north of Polaris. We would expect the size of the constellation, measured in angular magnitude, to be smaller when more distant.

Of course this could be caused by light bending such as then the sun moves across the sky with constant magnitude. Perspective causes the sun to decrease in apparent size, but light bending magnifies it again.

The FE model, whatever it is, is far more complex than RE.

[Tom Bishop]

Learn about parallax here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/migchels.wordpress.com/2015/04/01/heliocentricity-is-dead-there-is-no-stellar-parallax/amp/

Some stars do make movements... Movements that are contrary to RET, however.

[AATW]

Ha. The URL "heliocentricity-is-dead-there-is-no-stellar-parallax" makes me already excited about the nice, unbiased, scientific content I will find.
It's good confirmation bias, isn't it?

I'm reading it. I've got to the bit where he says
"By explaining away the lack of stellar parallax, Copernicus was in fact not in accordance with Occam’s razor, which claims that the simplest solution is usually best."
That made me giggle, as though Occam's Razor was an immutable property of the universe rather than a vague principle which doesn't necessarily always hold.
I'll keep reading.

I don't know what this guy's qualifications are to talk about this by the way, he hasn't provided a single reference so far. I will read on.

Disappointing. I've got to his first reference and it's a dead link...