The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Science & Alternative Science => Topic started by: Tintagel on December 23, 2013, 06:08:23 PM
-
I wanted to start a thread for the discussion of some of the alternative theories about the nature of earth that one can find alongside FET, in an effort to bring more diversity to the forums. I've flirted with geocentricity, but FET has my heart.
Are there any geocentrists or hollow earth theorists among us?
-
Of all of the alternative cosmologies, I personally think that round earth geocentrism best supports real world observations. Perhaps that's why it out lasted FET for more than 1500 years.
-
Of all of the alternative cosmologies, I personally think that round earth geocentrism best supports real world observations. Perhaps that's why it out lasted FET for more than 1500 years.
There's a lot that is compelling about geocentrism, I agree, but there's enough that I feel is more beautifully explained in a flat earth system that I ultimately keep going back to that.
I do have some old research that I did on a spherical geocentric model that I could maybe trot out again, just for the sake of conversation.
-
Moved to S&AS because that's kind of the sort of topic this subforum was intended for.
-
Moved to S&AS because that's kind of the sort of topic this subforum was intended for.
'
I stand corrected. Thanks Roundy :)
-
There's a lot that is compelling about geocentrism, I agree, but there's enough that I feel is more beautifully explained in a flat earth system that I ultimately keep going back to that.
Seriously? Like what? RE geocentrism (REG, for short) explains basic observations like sunrise/set, moonrise/set, solar and lunar eclipses, the seasons and even planetary motion far easier and more elegantly that FET ever could. REG can even explain the sinking ship effect without resorting to unproven physics like bendy light.
Please, name one thing that FET explains better than REG.
-
There's a lot that is compelling about geocentrism, I agree, but there's enough that I feel is more beautifully explained in a flat earth system that I ultimately keep going back to that.
Seriously? Like what? RE geocentrism (REG, for short) explains basic observations like sunrise/set, moonrise/set, solar and lunar eclipses, the seasons and even planetary motion far easier and more elegantly that FET ever could. REG can even explain the sinking ship effect without resorting to unproven physics like bendy light.
Please, name one thing that FET explains better than REG.
Looking out your window, I suppose.
-
Of all of the alternative cosmologies, I personally think that round earth geocentrism best supports real world observations.
What research into geocentrism have you done?
Perhaps that's why it out lasted FET for more than 1500 years[citation needed].
markjoooooooooooooooo
-
Of all of the alternative cosmologies, I personally think that round earth geocentrism best supports real world observations.
What research into geocentrism have you done?
I don't know if I'd call it research, but I've been on these forums long enough to see and form opinions on various cosmologies, including geocentrism.
Perhaps that's why it out lasted FET for more than 1500 years[citation needed].
markjoooooooooooooooo
The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to ancient Greek philosophy from around the 6th century BC,[1] but remained a matter of philosophical speculation until the 3rd century BC when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the earth as a physical given.
It was not until the 16th century that a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus of Poland, leading to the Copernican Revolution.
-
Perhaps that's why it out lasted FET for more than 1500 years[citation needed].
markjoooooooooooooooo
The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to ancient Greek philosophy from around the 6th century BC,[1] but remained a matter of philosophical speculation until the 3rd century BC when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the earth as a physical given.
It was not until the 16th century that a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus of Poland, leading to the Copernican Revolution.
Irrelevant. You said that one "outlasted" the other. If by "outlasted" you meant something else than outlasted, then I apologise for giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you did, however, mean outlasted, please get to the point.
-
There's a lot that is compelling about geocentrism, I agree, but there's enough that I feel is more beautifully explained in a flat earth system that I ultimately keep going back to that.
Seriously? Like what? RE geocentrism (REG, for short) explains basic observations like sunrise/set, moonrise/set, solar and lunar eclipses, the seasons and even planetary motion far easier and more elegantly that FET ever could. REG can even explain the sinking ship effect without resorting to unproven physics like bendy light.
Please, name one thing that FET explains better than REG.
FET explains the sinking ship with the proven physics of looking out your window. I don't see parallel lines extending infinitely into the vanishing point, never touching, as the theories of geometry suggest, and upon which physical theories are based. No one has seen that. What is seen is that things disappear at a vanishing point, and that two parallel lines will touch. The vanishing point can be seen in railroad perspective photos.
Furthermore, sinking ship effect has been reversed, by looking at the ship through a telescope, restoring the hull to view and proving that the ship was not really hiding behind a 'hill of water'. These observations are unexplained in RET.
It cannot be assumed that the imaginary world of geometry is valid if its predictions have not been observed in reality.
-
"Looking out your window" proves nothing about the Earth's shape and does not have its own physics.
-
"Looking out your window" proves nothing about the Earth's shape and does not have its own physics.
Of course it does. Observation is the basis of all science, zeteticism doubly so.
-
"Looking out your window" proves nothing about the Earth's shape and does not have its own physics.
Of course it does. Observation is the basis of all science, zeteticism doubly so.
That's a non-sequitur. I don't dispute the importance of observation and that was not remotely close to the point I was making. You cannot, by looking out your window, discern if the Earth is a planar or an oblate spheroid of tens of thousands of kms in diameter. Not only is the eye not capable of discerning the amount if curve that is predicted by Geodesy but local geography would give a wildly varying impression of what landscape is predominant. Based on this, looking out your window is not a good way to ascertain the shape off the earth. It works as a rhetorical piece only.
-
Furthermore, sinking ship effect has been reversed, by looking at the ship through a telescope, restoring the hull to view and proving that the ship was not really hiding behind a 'hill of water'.
You keep making this claim but have never provided any photographic evidence to support it, despite numerous requests.
-
According to RET, geocentrism and heliocentrism are the same thing. Relativity and all that. It's just a question of whether your frame of reference is the Sun or the Earth.
-
All the planets revolving around the sun is materially different than all the planets and the sun revolving around the Earth. Maybe I am misinterpreting what you mean by heliocentric.
-
All the planets revolving around the sun is materially different than all the planets and the sun revolving around the Earth. Maybe I am misinterpreting what you mean by heliocentric.
I'm referring to the neo-tychonic geocentric model, which has been shown to be equivilent to the copernican model: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.7129.pdf
-
According to RET, geocentrism and heliocentrism are the same thing. Relativity and all that. It's just a question of whether your frame of reference is the Sun or the Earth.
For most observations, yes. However, stellar aberration (http://mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm) proves that the earth is orbiting the sun.
-
According to RET, geocentrism and heliocentrism are the same thing. Relativity and all that. It's just a question of whether your frame of reference is the Sun or the Earth.
For most observations, yes. However, stellar aberration (http://mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm) proves that the earth is orbiting the sun.
Did you actually bother to click on what I linked? It's a scientific paper demonstrating the parallactic equivilence between both models. Since parallax and aberration are intrinsically linked, it follows that this is true to aberration as well.
Note: for the uninitiated, parallax is caused by a change in position while aberration is caused by instantaneous velocity
-
Parallax and Aberration are not intrinsically linked.
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Aberration_of_light.html
I cannot say whether or not some sort of equivalence applies to aberration though.
-
All the planets revolving around the sun is materially different than all the planets and the sun revolving around the Earth. Maybe I am misinterpreting what you mean by heliocentric.
I'm referring to the neo-tychonic geocentric model, which has been shown to be equivilent to the copernican model: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.7129.pdf
This is fascinating. Tycho Brahe's geo-heliocentric model is bizarrely fantastic. Thanks for sharing, Tausami