Dual1ty

Re: Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?
« Reply #20 on: August 30, 2023, 05:56:35 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2023, 09:48:30 PM by Dual1ty »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?
« Reply #21 on: August 31, 2023, 02:24:00 AM »
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).
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?
« Reply #22 on: September 02, 2023, 07:51:48 PM »
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”.

Dual1ty

Re: Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?
« Reply #23 on: September 02, 2023, 07:58:52 PM »
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.

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 285
    • View Profile
Re: Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?
« Reply #24 on: September 06, 2023, 12:45:39 AM »
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.
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.

Dual1ty

Re: Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?
« Reply #25 on: September 06, 2023, 09:00:16 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2023, 01:35:37 PM by Dual1ty »

Re: Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?
« Reply #26 on: October 15, 2023, 09:43:47 PM »
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.

Re: Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?
« Reply #27 on: January 15, 2024, 01:34:35 PM »
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).