The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: jimster on August 16, 2023, 08:40:29 PM
-
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OrbitsHistory/page2.php
If the earth is flat, and observations match RE/Newton/Kepler, and the calculations are consistent with each other, is this just a coincidence? Does any FE find it amazing that there is a whole coherent system of observations and calculations that matches RE when the earth is actually flat and covered by a dome with planetary motion unexplained by FE calculations and theory? If I believed FE, that would be amazing to me.
Does FE have a similar explanation that provides accurate answers to the future position of planets?
There are computerized telescopes that you can tell to point at Mars, Saturn, etc now or any point in the future. How does this work if FE is true? Do the people who wrote the programs that do this know the true shape of the earth? How, if not Newton/Kepler/RE do they do it?
-
There is no such thing as Kepler's laws: Kepler had faked each and every entry, each calculation in Nova Astronomia:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10175.msg160200#msg160200
The 3D galactic orbit of the solar system looks like this:
(https://i.postimg.cc/nL6hx23b/safari.jpg)
https://i.postimg.cc/nL6hx23b/safari.jpg
What you'd need is a three dimensional Kepler law, something no one has ever derived or even thought of.
The 3D helical orbits of the planets cannot be justified, since one would need a lateral kind of gravitation which would pull the celestial bodies in such a manner.
-
There have been thousands of astronomers since Kepler, students doing calculations as learning, scientists looking to perfect or even falsify previous data. Any number of astronomers will confirm that the entire system is consistent with calculations and observations.
My friend has a computerized telescope which he commanded to point at Saturn. I looked through the eyepiece, and there it was, rings and all. Somebody knows how to calculate where it is.
There are open source programs to point telescope. You can examine the source code and see how it figures it out, and then install in a telescope to confirm it can find planets. If the program does not work according to RE/Newton/Kepler, you can expose that fact. If it does not actually work, you can expose that fact. Hint: it works, and just the way RE and astronomers know it to work.
So words, words, words here on TFES, or become world famous, probably make $$$$, establish the truth of FE. Show us that the software doesn't work by RE/Newton/Kepler, or doesn't work at all. Other wise, just bla-bla-bla.
-
I know RET better than you.
Please explain the faint young sun paradox. If you cannot, you are out of luck, your software simply uses the conventional RE diameters/distances for the planets in a PLANAR context. The orbits of the planets are not planar, they are helices on a cylinder.
Here is the faint young sun paradox:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290
-
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OrbitsHistory/page2.php
If the earth is flat, and observations match RE/Newton/Kepler, and the calculations are consistent with each other, is this just a coincidence? Does any FE find it amazing that there is a whole coherent system of observations and calculations that matches RE when the earth is actually flat and covered by a dome with planetary motion unexplained by FE calculations and theory? If I believed FE, that would be amazing to me.
Does FE have a similar explanation that provides accurate answers to the future position of planets?
There are computerized telescopes that you can tell to point at Mars, Saturn, etc now or any point in the future. How does this work if FE is true? Do the people who wrote the programs that do this know the true shape of the earth? How, if not Newton/Kepler/RE do they do it?
The models use epicycles - https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns
-
Before Brahe/Kepler, astronomers spent lifetimes computing epicycles, and mathematically, you can produce an equation to describe the path of planets. As the equation becomes more complicated, the approximation becomes better, like limits in calculus. So yes, you can come up with an equation to describe the path. Two issues.
1. After Newton/Kepler, the new "model" (RE astronomy, sun center of solar system, etc) replaced computing epicycles, shortly thereafter no astronomer was doing epicycles, they were all extending the Newton/Kepler sun centric solar system model. I googled "do astronomers still use epicycles?" and this came up at the top:
However, once the sun was in the center of the system and orbits were envisioned as being elliptical, as in modern astronomy, epicycles were no longer necessary.
In fact, the expression "adding epicycles" is now used by scientists to describe adding fudge factors to make your equations work. I suppose it is possible that astronomers were on the right track pre-1700, they all went wrong, and nowyou will set them straight, but it seems unlikely.
2. Computing epicycles is like what is called curve fitting in math. You come up with an equation to match the data. The equation is not derived from nor does it tell you anything about the physical processes behind the process that produced the data. Newton's laws and the idea of syn centric solar system take phenomena that can be demonstrated in experiments (I did them in college physics) and derive equations that predict planetary motion to confirm the theory. And indeed it does, or astronomers are stupid or conspirators in a 300 year conspiracy with no one (except possibly a few FE'ers) seeing the lie. In other words, having the equation tells you nothing about the physics, whereas sun centric solar system and Newton's laws produce equations that predicts future planetary positions. The equations exist (and experimentally verified) independet of and before being applied to prediction of planetary motion. This, to me, is profoundly significant aand incredible that the equations work if the underlying theory is not true. Epicycles are just coming up with an equation to describe the data.
My original point was that RE has equations that accurately predict along with an explanation of how it works. Epicycles may accurately predict positions, but what is the underlying mechanism that produces those equations? Can FE postulate a mechanism, derive equations, experimentally verify, and apply them to planetary motion to make accurate predictions? What are those mechanisms? Or find the flaw in RE physics and its application to astronomy?
Near as I can tell, in FE, planets just move around the dome making little loops and sometimes going backwards and no one knows why. What causes epicycles? No one knew then, and no one knows now. Or you could enlighten me.
-
The "faint young sun paradox" does not seem to have anything to do with whether Kepler's laws, RE, and sun centric solar system are true. It is a problem of trying to figure out the chemistry and physics of long long ago. This is hard, as it can not be visited or observed. But whatever about the sun's output not matching effects on earth, it tells you nothing about the orbits of planets around the sun and RE. The sun could have been faint on RE or FE, and ideas about conditions at that time are deduced, speculative, and are not confirmable without time travel.
Be careful, though. Some people here believe FE is true because of the Bible. They think earth was created less than 10,000 years ago in more or less its present form. Never heard of a "young earth" believer accepting science involving millions of years ago.
The reason you know RE better than I do is that you are searching it for errors or misrepresentation opportunities. In your search, you descend into the details. I find the basic ideas convincing and the basic ideas of FE so flawed that I see no reason to spend the time. For example, at the same time that someone in north America sees the dome covered with stars, someone in south America sees the same dome covered with completely different stars, while someone in the middle east sees the sun and light blue sky. RE explains this quite reasonably, while FE has no plausible explanation. Astronomers and science classes explain, and navigators confirm. GPS works with satellites, FE can't explain how a satellite works, or denies their existence. It makes sense as a system, FE has "models" without experimental proof or equations, and it has problems explaining people seeing different things on the same dome at the same time.
Psychologists call what you are doing "motivated reasoning", you are motivated to prove FE is true. I intend to be motivated to find the truth, and in 10 years of hearing FE explanations, RE wins easily. Explain why at sunset in Denver, someone in St Louis looks at the dome directly over Denver and sees dark sky with stars, while someone in Salt Lake City looks at the dome directly over Denver and sees light blue sky with no stars, and experiments to prove your mechanism rather than saying "it might be ...". That would be something.
-
Before Brahe/Kepler, astronomers spent lifetimes computing epicycles, and mathematically, you can produce an equation to describe the path of planets.
^If this was really true, there would be an accurate CGI motion picture rendering of the solar system hurtling through space, based on those equations.
But, there isn't.
-
However, once the sun was in the center of the system and orbits were envisioned as being elliptical, as in modern astronomy, epicycles were no longer necessary.
In fact, the expression "adding epicycles" is now used by scientists to describe adding fudge factors to make your equations work. I suppose it is possible that astronomers were on the right track pre-1700, they all went wrong, and nowyou will set them straight, but it seems unlikely.
I think you should read the entirety of the page I linked and the referenced sources. It talks about how modern planetary models use epicycles - https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns
(https://i.imgur.com/MDZ5dZ3.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/4ueBizG.png)
At this point I feel that one of the forum rules should be that the FES only wants to talk about rebuttals to the references in the Wiki and that you should read it and come up with a rebuttal which will either cause the reader to concede the issue or make the Wiki better with the ensuing discussion and presentation of counter-evidence.
It seems that no one bothers with it and I need to discuss it from scratch all the time. I mean, the rest of this conversation will just be me copy and pasting the 10 other references and quotes from the wiki when you say "nuh-uh" without presenting anything of your own. On rare occasion you will get me to exhaust those references and give me some motivation to go search for another few to add.
To hurry up this conversation so it gets to that point I've posted the three quotes above. When you post again with denial I'll post three more.
-
Before Brahe/Kepler, astronomers spent lifetimes computing epicycles, and mathematically, you can produce an equation to describe the path of planets.
^If this was really true, there would be an accurate CGI motion picture rendering of the solar system hurtling through space, based on those equations.
But, there isn't.
Why would there be? Keppler's laws do not describe the solar system hurtling through space. They describe how the planets orbit around the sun.
-
I do not quarrel with your assertion that it is possible to derive equations that describe planetary motion, and apparently we agreed that these equations approach accuracy as the number of terms approach infinity. I said that in sloppier language, or meant to. It also appears that modern astrodynamics may use epicycles, to my surprise. I found a research paper:
https://authors.library.caltech.edu/24754/
"This paper presents a modern treatment of epicycle theory, which is an exact series representation of Keplerian motion, and uses that theory to develop the first analytic method for analyzing the higher order dynamics of the LISA orbits. LISA, the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna mission, uses a constellation of three spacecraft in heliocentric space and takes advantage of particular solutions of the Clohessy-Wiltshire equations."
So I was wrong, epicycles are used by modern astronomers, but I don't think much. Note that the author is confirming the equivalence to Kepler.
From the wiki page on deferent and epicycle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle
"Epicycles worked very well and were highly accurate, because, as Fourier analysis later showed, any smooth curve can be approximated to arbitrary accuracy with a sufficient number of epicycles. However, they fell out of favor with the discovery that planetary motions were largely elliptical from a heliocentric frame of reference, which led to the discovery that gravity obeying a simple inverse square law could better explain all planetary motions."
This is the overall approximate truth I was under the impression of, and I think it is true that most astronomers today do not use epicycles. In math, there are often different approaches that yield the same results, and apparently, epicycles helped at least one modern astronomer, who, as I mentioned, said it was equivalent.
And it remains true that epicycle equations are produced by taking data and analyzing it without relation to underlying physical theory. It is a case of, here is an equation that produces the curve described by the data, while Newton/Kepler says here is mass and position and velocity and equations describing experimentally confirmed forces, and those equations accurately predict observed apparent planetary motions produced by heliocentric RE astronomy.
Case in point, astronomers observed slight variations in the predicted orbits of known planets, and used the Newtonian equations within RE heliocentric solar system to predict the existence of Neptune. They looked where they calculated it should be, and there it was. Epicycles could not do that.
But ... that was not the question of the original post. The original question is whether Newton/Kepler equations "worked", are they consistent and predictive. Per the above articles and general knowledge, yes they are. My point is that the motion of planets on FE dome may be described and even predicted by epicycles, but they don't explain why planets appear to make little loops, slow down, go backwards (planets to ancient Greeks: wandering stars). Kepler/Newton/RE are also consistent and predictive, as well as explanatory. If FE is true and planets are moving around on the dome, it is amazing to me that there is a 3d explanation that matches with known laws of physics. What a coincidence! Heliocentric Kepler/Newton RE solar system has the same appearance as the FE dome.
If you take FE as true, you don't know the how or why of the appearance of planets and other heavenly bodies, nor day and night, different stars in the southern and northern hemispheres, etc. You don't know why when it is sunset in Denver, people looking at the dome directly over Denver from St Louis see dark sky with stars, while at the same time people in Salt Lake City look at the same spot on the dome and see light blue with no stars. RE explains this consistent with known physical laws. FE requires some complex, speculative, unproven explanations, or has no explanation at all. "Some people have proposed a model ..." is not proof, not complete, not consistent.
Please point me at the place in the wiki that explains how people can see such different things when looking at the same spot on the same dome, and I will rebut it. I have looked (and asked), and I haven't found it.
-
However, once the sun was in the center of the system and orbits were envisioned as being elliptical, as in modern astronomy, epicycles were no longer necessary.
In fact, the expression "adding epicycles" is now used by scientists to describe adding fudge factors to make your equations work. I suppose it is possible that astronomers were on the right track pre-1700, they all went wrong, and nowyou will set them straight, but it seems unlikely.
I think you should read the entirety of the page I linked and the referenced sources. It talks about how modern planetary models use epicycles - https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns
(https://i.imgur.com/MDZ5dZ3.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/4ueBizG.png)
At this point I feel that one of the forum rules should be that the FES only wants to talk about rebuttals to the references in the Wiki and that you should read it and come up with a rebuttal which will either cause the reader to concede the issue or make the Wiki better with the ensuing discussion and presentation of counter-evidence.
It seems that no one bothers with it and I need to discuss it from scratch all the time. I mean, the rest of this conversation will just be me copy and pasting the 10 other references and quotes from the wiki when you say "nuh-uh" without presenting anything of your own. On rare occasion you will get me to exhaust those references and give me some motivation to go search for another few to add.
To hurry up this conversation so it gets to that point I've posted the three quotes above. When you post again with denial I'll post three more.
Fourier series are a useful tool for mathematicians and scientists. The fundamental point that you are either wilfully ignoring / misrepresenting or just not understanding is that the modern day ephemerides are not simply Fourier series, or indeed any other model based on observation alone. They are, in fact, based on the equations of motion of the numerous orbiting masses. You seem to obsess over the fact that numerical integration is used. That this is the case proves nothing - it is an entirely valid method for solving challenging PDEs and its use is widespread.
-
Before Brahe/Kepler, astronomers spent lifetimes computing epicycles, and mathematically, you can produce an equation to describe the path of planets.
^If this was really true, there would be an accurate CGI motion picture rendering of the solar system hurtling through space, based on those equations.
But, there isn't.
Why would there be? Keppler's laws do not describe the solar system hurtling through space. They describe how the planets orbit around the sun.
Oh, and the solar system is, of course, motionless while this is happening...must be some of that "simple physics," you seem to be so fond of.
Never mind in your world, Kepler's laws are also "simple approximations." COMEDY GOLD!
-
Oh, and the solar system is, of course, motionless while this is happening...must be some of that "simple physics," you seem to be so fond of.
As far as Kepler knew at the time, yes. Perhaps you should brush up on the concept of frames of reference as they apply to heliocentrism.
Never mind in your world, Kepler's laws are also "simple approximations." COMEDY GOLD!
What's wrong with approximations? It's not as if Kepler is the final authority on the motions of the planets within the solar system.
-
My point is that the motion of planets on FE dome may be described and even predicted by epicycles, but they don't explain why planets appear to make little loops, slow down, go backwards (planets to ancient Greeks: wandering stars). Kepler/Newton/RE are also consistent and predictive, as well as explanatory. If FE is true and planets are moving around on the dome, it is amazing to me that there is a 3d explanation that matches with known laws of physics. What a coincidence! Heliocentric Kepler/Newton RE solar system has the same appearance as the FE dome.
If you take FE as true, you don't know the how or why of the appearance of planets and other heavenly bodies, nor day and night, different stars in the southern and northern hemispheres, etc. You don't know why when it is sunset in Denver, people looking at the dome directly over Denver from St Louis see dark sky with stars, while at the same time people in Salt Lake City look at the same spot on the dome and see light blue with no stars. RE explains this consistent with known physical laws. FE requires some complex, speculative, unproven explanations, or has no explanation at all. "Some people have proposed a model ..." is not proof, not complete, not consistent.
Please point me at the place in the wiki that explains how people can see such different things when looking at the same spot on the same dome, and I will rebut it. I have looked (and asked), and I haven't found it.
You talk a lot about this so-called "FE dome". What is this "dome" to you exactly - can you explain your strawman, please?
-
Re the FE dome, this is a common, perhaps majority idea of FE. It is of course difficult to discuss FE theories, since the only thing I have found that all FEs agree on is that the earth is not round. Most of the wiki is full of statements like "some models" or "there is a theory". Unlike RE, there is no system of facts that all FEs agree on.
But ...
The question was, is the Newton/Kepler/astronomy as taught at my high school and college consistent with observations and calculations? If you calculate the mass, velocity, gravity etc per Newton, astronomer observations, all of RE science, are there inconsistencies?
I am hoping for a yes or no answer, not a discussion of whether epicycles work, or even whether FE is true. Just the answer of whether RE science is consistent with itself and observations.
My ultimate point is that until FE shows inconsistency in calculations and observations, I would find it astounding if the FE solar system is not Kepler/Newton and yet the entire system of calculations and observations is consistent and predictive.
Will any FE admit that Newton/Kepler is consistent and predictive? Will any FE admit that it is an astounding coincidence that if you don't account for the bending light (per EA wiki page), that assuming light travels straight through a vacuum, RE solar system, Newton's laws, RE science in general, then RE science is consistent with calculations and observations.
Please, yes or no. If the answer is no, you can be a famous scientist like Kepler, Galileo, etc. If the answer is yes, RE is the most amazing coincidence in science. I have beaten this to death in hopes of getting my answer because the answers either pick apart my question (am I able to communicate a question? Will repetition help?) or answer a different question (Do epicycles work?). Yes or no?
Is RE/Newton/Kepler consistent with itself and observations? Yes or no?
-
I asked you to explain exactly what this "FE dome" is that you constantly use a strawman (including in your signature).
You don't get to answer "the FE dome, this is a common, perhaps majority idea of FE." and move on.
Well, you can, but I will simply ignore you if that is the case. Explain what you mean by your "FE dome" in detail, please.
-
Explain what you mean by your "FE dome" in detail, please.
Perhaps you should read the wiki.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere
-
Explain what you mean by your "FE dome" in detail, please.
Perhaps you should read the wiki.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere
Too bad that's not what he means by it. Celestial sphere is not physical and is always centered around the observer, and I'm pretty sure his pathetic concept of "FE dome" is physical and does not center around the observer.
But, I'm sure he can clarify his strawman himself without you butting in.
-
In my nearly 10 years trying to understand and verify the truth of FE, I have heard many FEs describe our world as a terrarium, flat land under a dome. It is always difficult to determine what exactly FE means, as FEs do not agree and often their ideas are presented as models, as possibilities, often multiple possibilities. So some say dome, some don't, whatever.
Forget the dome, sorry I mentioned it.
My question is whether the RE model of the solar system is consistent with observations and calculations per Newtonian physics. If RE astronomy was true, would it account for planetary motion as observed from the surface of the earth? Are Newton's equations consistent with orbital paths and are those paths what we would see in RE solar system?
The possible answers from FE believer are:
1. Yes, the RE explanation is consistent with calculations and observations, but that is just an amazing coincidence. The light bends to make the appearance of RE actually be FE, although FE can't explain the forces and equations involved.
2. No, here are calculations that show that Newton was wrong, or observations that show that Kepler was wrong.
All other answers, including the FE posts in this thread, do not answer my question. Dome or no dome, epicycles, fourier, etc. The question remains, is Kepler/Newton consistent with observations and calculations? If the solar system is what RE says it is, does that account for its appearance? Is RE consistent with Newtonian equations of mass and motion?
That is the only question of this thread.
-
In my nearly 10 years trying to understand and verify the truth of FE, I have heard many FEs describe our world as a terrarium, flat land under a dome. It is always difficult to determine what exactly FE means, as FEs do not agree and often their ideas are presented as models, as possibilities, often multiple possibilities. So some say dome, some don't, whatever.
Forget the dome, sorry I mentioned it.
My question is whether the RE model of the solar system is consistent with observations and calculations per Newtonian physics. If RE astronomy was true, would it account for planetary motion as observed from the surface of the earth? Are Newton's equations consistent with orbital paths and are those paths what we would see in RE solar system?
The possible answers from FE believer are:
1. Yes, the RE explanation is consistent with calculations and observations, but that is just an amazing coincidence. The light bends to make the appearance of RE actually be FE, although FE can't explain the forces and equations involved.
2. No, here are calculations that show that Newton was wrong, or observations that show that Kepler was wrong.
All other answers, including the FE posts in this thread, do not answer my question. Dome or no dome, epicycles, fourier, etc. The question remains, is Kepler/Newton consistent with observations and calculations? If the solar system is what RE says it is, does that account for its appearance? Is RE consistent with Newtonian equations of mass and motion?
That is the only question of this thread.
I don't get what your "gotcha" is supposed to be. It's really not an "amazing coincidence" once you understand it. Of course it's going to be consistent with observations because that's how the heliocentric model was created.
Celestial sphere Wikipedia page says "All objects in the sky can be conceived as being projected upon the inner surface of the celestial sphere, which may be centered on Earth or the observer. If centered on the observer, half of the sphere would resemble a hemispherical screen over the observing location.". I don't think that makes sense because it has to be one or the other - it can't be both at the same time because the observer is on the surface. But it's really the same thing when it comes to observations. Basically, you can assume that we live on a spherical world with flat eyes and celestial objects millions of miles to billions of "light years" away, or you can "assume" (it's not really an assumption) that we live on a flat world with spherical eyes and celestial objects being apparently at a few thousand miles. I know which one is true.
-
I don't get what your "gotcha" is supposed to be.
Why does there have to be a "gotcha"? Why can't it just be a legitimate question asked in good faith?
Celestial sphere Wikipedia page says "All objects in the sky can be conceived as being projected upon the inner surface of the celestial sphere, which may be centered on Earth or the observer. If centered on the observer, half of the sphere would resemble a hemispherical screen over the observing location.". I don't think that makes sense because it has to be one or the other - it can't be both at the same time because the observer is on the surface.
Not necessarily. Celestial navigation based on the celestial sphere has been used on aircraft (and spacecraft) for many years.
https://skybrary.aero/articles/celestial-navigation
But it's really the same thing when it comes to observations. Basically, you can assume that we live on a spherical world with flat eyes and celestial objects millions of miles to billions of "light years" away, or you can "assume" (it's not really an assumption) that we live on a flat world with spherical eyes and celestial objects being apparently at a few thousand miles. I know which one is true.
Actually, simple trigonometry shows that it's not the same at all. A long used example to determine the height of the sun above that flat earth is to wait until the day of an equinox when the sun is directly over the equator and then measure the elevation angle from a position at 45 degrees latitude (north or south doesn't matter). You create a right triangle with a base of 3000 miles (the distance from the equator to 45 degrees latitude) and the result is that the sun is 3000 miles high. However, if you move your position to any other latitude, then the calculated height of the sun changes. There is an equinox coming up in a few weeks if you want to test this method yourself. Or, if you prefer not to wait, the same method can be used to calculate the distance to Polaris (or any other celestial body, if you're willing to do the math).
-
I don't get what your "gotcha" is supposed to be.
Why does there have to be a "gotcha"? Why can't it just be a legitimate question asked in good faith?
Everything must be a “gotcha”, “bashing”, or “trolling”.
-
I don't get what your "gotcha" is supposed to be.
Why does there have to be a "gotcha"? Why can't it just be a legitimate question asked in good faith?
Everything must be a “gotcha”, “bashing”, or “trolling”.
He says "FEs do not agree and often their ideas are presented as models, as possibilities, often multiple possibilities. So some say dome, some don't, whatever. Forget the dome, sorry I mentioned it." while having "I am really curious about so many FE things, like how at sunset in Denver, people in St Louis see the dome as dark with stars, while people in Salt Lake City see the same dome as light blue. FE scientists don't know or won't tell me." in his signature.
See the contradiction? There's no way this guy is acting in good faith after his "10 years trying to understand and verify the truth of FE". If he was REALLY trying to understand FE, he would be a flat-earther and not use strawmen to try to debunk it.
-
Good faith: If someone had explanations, equations, and experiments that proved flat earth and explained things like sunset and sunrise, I would believe FE. Sunset and sunrise are explained by "the light bends", while there is no explanation of why, no experiment, no equations. The wiki page on EA used to say it bends due to unknown forces with unknown equations, but that seems to have been removed once I quoted the wiki page on zetetic where it said you should not believe things unless it has been experimentally demonstrated, and the EA page admitted there are no experiments proving EA bends light. I have listened to many FE ideas, people misunderstanding perspective and vanishing point etc etc etc. The FE ideas are full of misunderstandings and gaps. RE has explanation for sunrise and sunset that works geometrically, and so many other things.
Gotcha: This is another word for proof by contradiction, used in math and epistemology, Karl Popper says you can't prove anything, you can only assume things are true and show that leads to contradiction with known facts, so in perhaps the leading school of thought on epistemology, "gotcha" is all there is. The use of the word in daily life is not even about the probitive value of a statement. It is a tribal appeal to emotions, making the conversation not a search for truth, but invalidation by saying you're not looking for truth, you are trying to invalidate my tribe. Which I am, but calling my argument a gotcha attempt does not change the logic of the argument.
I wasn't even arguing that the earth is not flat. I was asking if someone can find flaws in the Newton/Kepler system, which explains why people see different stars above them in northern/southern hemisphere, why sun sets and rises, etc etc etc. Is there something we REs have missed in calculations and observations, or does RE geometry "work", is it consistent with calculations and observations? Please show your work. It is possible that the appearance of planets is consistent with RE yet the earth is actually flat. My observation about that is that even if true, it is remarkable that the RE calculations and observations are consistent because FE geometry is greatly different.
I doubt that any FE will say "observations and calculations of Newton/Kepler are consistent with observations". They just won't. Neither will they come up with Newtonian calculations that are inconsistent with observations.
Don't you think it is remarkable that RE could be be consistent with calculations and observations yet the earth is actually flat? That something so wrong could predict planetary motions accurately?
PS Flat eyes and under my feet??? I do not understand. I freely admit that if you just look around you, the earth looks flat. This is because the earth is so big, that locally, flat is a good approximation. FE breaks down when you try to explain sunrise/sunset, different stars in southern/northern hemisphere, etc etc etc.
-
1. Says he's been "trying to understand FE" for 10 years (lol).
2. Says there are no explanations for sunset & sunrise within FE.
3. Immediately after that he says there are explanations, but they are "full of misunderstandings and gaps" and does not elaborate.
4. Says "you can't prove anything, you can only assume things are true" (lol).
5. Says "in perhaps the leading school of thought on epistemology, "gotcha" is all there is" (lol).
6. Says globe Earth geometry works, but wants to look at the sky to "confirm" this, not the Earth itself.
7. Pretends that the celestial sphere does not exist if the Earth is flat and tries to push "FE dome" strawman instead (he said "forget about it" after being called out for it while he has it in his signature).
8. Admits he doesn't understand celestial sphere in a FE context.
9. Says Earth is a globe but is approximately locally flat (a geometrical impossibility; not to mention that the Earth isn't that big considering there is supposed to be 66 feet of curvature in just 10 miles).
10. Again insists that "FE breaks down when you try to explain sunrise/sunset, different stars in southern/northern hemisphere, etc etc etc.", when it does not.
-
The picture you’re showing isn’t a confutation of Kepler’s laws, in fact it is based upon his discoveries. What you are showing is just the movement of the whole solar system moving from space. This is an image of the solar system is basically like a picture taken by somebody standing still in the space while our solar system moves.
I also wanted to add that if you’re trying to prove Kepler wrong you are late, even Isaac Newton with his gravitational laws was wrong. This is the reason why today for complex astronomy calculations we use Einstein’s general relativity model, because it is the most accurate yet discovered.
-
1. Says he's been "trying to understand FE" for 10 years (lol).
2. Says there are no explanations for sunset & sunrise within FE.
3. Immediately after that he says there are explanations, but they are "full of misunderstandings and gaps" and does not elaborate.
4. Says "you can't prove anything, you can only assume things are true" (lol).
5. Says "in perhaps the leading school of thought on epistemology, "gotcha" is all there is" (lol).
6. Says globe Earth geometry works, but wants to look at the sky to "confirm" this, not the Earth itself.
7. Pretends that the celestial sphere does not exist if the Earth is flat and tries to push "FE dome" strawman instead (he said "forget about it" after being called out for it while he has it in his signature).
8. Admits he doesn't understand celestial sphere in a FE context.
9. Says Earth is a globe but is approximately locally flat (a geometrical impossibility; not to mention that the Earth isn't that big considering there is supposed to be 66 feet of curvature in just 10 miles).
10. Again insists that "FE breaks down when you try to explain sunrise/sunset, different stars in southern/northern hemisphere, etc etc etc.", when it does not.
There are some questions about sun rises and sunsets (height of the sun, angular position of the sun when it "sets")
The globe model says that the earth is a pretty big globe--which means it measures "almost flat" locally. That's not a contradiction: it's what would be predicted (and is how really big globes measured by comparatively small things on them works).
The rotation of the stars in different directions is easily explained with the globe / 'celestial sphere' around it concept. It isn't nearly so easy to explain on a flat earth (you have to have two different star-projections going in different directions or something).