1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: UA can surpass the speed of light without any problems.

« on: September 13, 2024, 10:19:00 PM »

It is so interesting that FE says we have been accelerating at 32 ft/sec/sec for thousands of years. We must be going pretty fast in some huge space and we never hit anything. So presumably, the space we are acceleration throughYet the dome model has no way to observe what is outside the dome, the space through which we are accelerating. So according to UA, all we know is how fast the earth is accelerating infinitely through possibly empty space, which is puzzling, because acceleration is in relation to some fixed point, and with UA and the dome model there is no known fixed point outside of the dome.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: September 13, 2024, 10:08:32 PM »

I have heard three stories from FEs. One is that gravity is the same as RE, possibly with infinite plane FE model. Another is UA. which comes in 2 versions, no gravity or a "little bit of gravity" to account for the slight variations in the gravity in different places. I am surprised you haven't been advised (admonished) to read the FAQ on UA. As always, the UA section of the FAQ does not have observations, equations, or definite commitment to UA, so as always with FE, they have speculation without proof or commitment.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Finding Polaris and FE model

« on: September 13, 2024, 10:00:36 PM »

AT sunset in Denver, someone in St Louis can see Polaris to the north. At that same moment, someone in Salt Lake City looking directly north would see blue sky. It is not distance, because Salt Lake City and St Louis are roughly the same distance from the north pole. FE explanation?

4

Flat Earth Theory / Relativity and frames question

« on: September 13, 2024, 09:54:13 PM »

I searched for the definition of frames in relativity because I have seen FE explanations that talk about frames:

A “frame of reference” is a standard relative to which motion and rest may be measured; any set of points or objects that are at rest relative to one another enables us, in principle, to describe the relative motions of bodies.

When I learn about FE models, the most popular is the dome. Far as I know, there is no observation or explanation, possibly no way to know what lies beyond the inside of the dome. The UA theory says we are accelerating, which implies a location outside the dome to measure acceleration relative to. Incidentally, lucky us that the acceleration is not in the opposite direction, or we would be pinned to the dome looking up at thew earth's surface.

Seems to me that in FE models, there is only one possible frame. Most popular is the dome model, its own frame that includes nothing beyond it. My question is whether there is a FE model with multiple frames, or is the frame relativity theory wrong/nonexistent, or what?

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Firmament /Dome

« on: September 13, 2024, 09:39:53 PM »

If you believe in UA and a dome, then the earth is accelerating at 32 ft/second/second and, apparently, so are objects in the sky. so a force adequate for that acceleration must be applied to the sun, moon, planets, asteroids, etc to accelerate identically. The material you propose is not strong structurally. The sun produces a huge measurable amount of energy and if the dome model is correct, the sun 35 miles across as calculated from a dome 3500 miles away (or maybe no one knows). Seems unlikely something that produces all that energy and is 35 miles wide would have So if the "dome" is made of aerogel, what holds up the sun? Is it so light that aerogel can support it or is there some other structure we don't know about?

6

Flat Earth Theory / 2 questions about UA

« on: June 11, 2024, 11:06:36 PM »

UA seems plausible, the model would explain what we observe in everyday life, at least for a while.

Question 1: The sun and moon seem to stay more or less the same distance per many FE models, thus they must be accelerating identically. Is there some structure that holds them up there? If the dome is holding them up, that would be some impressive structure. Or perhaps the same force that is accelerating the earth is acting on them but not airplanes.

Question 2: Do we have any reference outside the earth and astronomical objects that do not appear to be getting closer, thus must be accelerating as part of the earth/astronomical object system. Acceleration must be in relation to a point that is not accelerating, yet I see no info in FE on where that point is or how to observe it. My question is, can we observe or measure this acceleration from any frame of reference, or is the only way we know it is accelerating is by dropping things at the surface of the earth and attributing the acceleration of 32 feet/sec/sec to the earth rising instead of the object falling?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: falsification, epistemology, FE and RE

« on: June 11, 2024, 10:53:28 PM »

Re falsification of RE/FE:

On the wiki page of maps, all the FE maps are falsifiable by comparing the distances on the maps to gps, airline schedules, google maps, time/speed/distance, navigation works, etc, all consistent and proved many many times daily by airliners arriving, ships, many other ways. In most FE maps. Australia is way too big and the distance to Los Angeles (a route I flew) is way too long.

I have a globe and used a piece of string and the scale printed on the globe to measure some distances and compared them to google maps, lat/long, and various internet sites. They were all the same and matched RE. I submit a globe is the only map that is not falsifiable in that way.

Within Euclidean 3 space and Newtonian physics, RE is not falsifiable. All the FE maps in the wiki are easily falsifiable.

If you want to falsify RE, you can use non-Euclidean geometry and esoteric math. I can also prove that 1 = 0 using math, so ...

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: falsification, epistemology, FE and RE

« on: June 11, 2024, 10:34:28 PM »

Re solipsism, this is the definition I meant:

    Philosophy
    the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
    "solipsism is an idealist thesis because ‘Only my mind exists’ entails ‘Only minds exist’"

Religion, politics, and flat earth often use what I would call "partial solipsism", saying "You can't know that." Information that falsifies their narrative can be dealt with by claiming you can't know (faulty senses, hypnotism, conspiracy, fake news, etc) things. For instance, one FE posted that it is impossible to know the distance across oceans. If the only certainty is
I think, therefor I am" and only your existence to ask the question is certain, all inconvenient facts can be dismissed.

9

Flat Earth Theory / falsification, epistemology, FE and RE

« on: May 19, 2024, 07:52:24 PM »

The wiki contains falsification of RE, even though RE has many observations and explains things like equatorial telescope mounts, sunset/sunrise, eclipse, day and night, 24 hour sun or darkness at the poles, etc etc etc. So let's say RE is falsified despite many reasons to think it is true. My question is whether FE models can be falsified. It seems to me that the ratio of proof of RE to falsification of RE is pretty high, many reasons to believe RE and few to falsify it. FE believers seem to hypothesize various explanations of the problems with various FE models without experiments, proof, equations, etc, just "well, it might be".

My question is why can't RE belief be saved by "well, it might be ..." as FE often is?

Could the true FE model be determined by falsification similar to RE falsification?

If that standard applied to all FE models, would any survive? Why can't the FE world falsify all but one model to determine the true form of the earth? If inconsistencies can be explained by unproven hypothetical forces, how can the FE world ever figure out which is true?

Is it the case that RE has to be complete, consistent, and flawless, while FE can have inconsistencies and not correlate to observations without "unknown forces and unknown equations" as the wiki formerly explained EA (aka "bendy light")?

Does someone have a flawless FE model, no inconsistencies that require light to bend etc? Or are all RE and FE models flawed and we can never know?

I submit that there is no falsification of anything that can not be explained by some mechanism you dream up if no experiment, equations, or other sharable and verifiable is required and that includes RE. For instance, one could easily make up a previously unknown force to explain Michaelson Morley RE falsification. I submit that in this sense, RE is exactly the same as FE models in that you have some reason to believe it, but it has flaws. Until we have experiments, observations, equations etc to explain things like UA and EA, FE is no more unfalsified than RE.

So the solipsist can not believe RE or FE.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New idea on observing Sigma Octantis from multiple locations

« on: April 15, 2024, 11:16:03 PM »

Where is Sigma Octantus?

If the earth is a spheroid. light travels straight in a vacuum, and Sigma Octantus is a star 294 light years away and 1 degree off a line extended from the south pole, then all over the southern hemisphere it will be visible at any point in the southern hemisphere almost directly south and at an angle above the horizon equal to the latitude of the observer's location. This is explained in textbooks, web sites, videos, etc, consistently and unambiguously. Navigators have used this and observers have confirmed this. In this respect, the earth appears round and the geometry is consistent. Any RE will tell the exact same story. In this respect, the earth appears to be round.

If the earth is flat, we know the light is bending but do not know why or how. The bending can only be determined by what bending needs to occur for the round appearance to actually be flat. We don't know whether there is one pole or two. We don't know why at the same time people in the north see entirely different stars than people in the south. Since we don't know how the light bends, we don't know where Sigma Octantus actually is.

It is not just the azimuth of Sigma Octantus but also elevation (angle above the horizon). It is stated above (hypothesized? speculated?) that SIgma Octantus is directly above the south pole in the bi-polar model. Since Sigma Octantus is on the horizon when viewed from the equator, that makes it appear to be directly on the south pole while far to the south it appears to be far above it. So the light bends vertically as well as horizontally.

In the monopole disc model Sigma Octantus is in every direction, always directly opposite to the north pole. Seems like it would be visible from the northern hemisphere. It has the same elevation problem as bi-polar model.

So that leaves us with: RE has an explanation that is known, consistent with observations, and identical in all RE info sources. FE does not know which model and has no equations, explanations, or verification experiments to explain observations. Yet some believe the earth is flat. Sure would like to hear the details of EA, but so far the definition is "whatever it has to be to make the appearance of RE be actually FE".

Interestingly, if we know the light bends in various directions but do not know exactly how, Sigma Octantus could be anywhere. I claim that to know where Sigma Octantus is, we have to know the forces and equations of how the light bends. If it does not bend, the earth is round.

I hope we can all agree with everything I said above. Please advise if I said anything that isn't true.

11

Flat Earth Theory / gravity in different places and universal acceleration

« on: April 10, 2024, 08:27:49 PM »

I saw a video where a man had a scale and a weight that he showed, then took went on an airliner a thousand miles away and showed the weight was slightly different. I googled "does gravity vary in different places?". I got results that said that due to different mass in different places, gravity does vary. Greater in mountains, less above trenches, which makes sense if gravity is attraction between masses as claimed by conventional consensus science.

Questions for FEs: Is this true, does gravity vary slightly in different places? Perhaps error or conspiracy? If gravity does vary, and gravity is due to universal acceleration (per the wiki?), does that mean that different places have slightly different acceleration? Seems to me that would distort the flatness over time. Places with less gravity would accelerate slightly slower, thus falling behind and so getting lower and lower compared to average, and mountains having more gravity would be accelerating. They would get continuously higher.

Should the universal acceleration theory be discarded, or is there an FE explanation for varying gravity?

12

Flat Earth Theory / Are the distances shown on google earth true?

« on: September 06, 2023, 12:56:51 AM »

GPS, google earth, celestial navigation, does any FE have an example of them not matching? If they are all correct, the shape of the earth is a geometry problem. They either match RE or FE. If they are not correct, please explain.

To put it another way, does the US Navy know where its ships are? Can they send a ship to Japan and order it mid course to go to Australia? Will it arrive? Will they know the distance and therefor whether they have enough fuel and when it will arrive? Does the US Navy know the shape of the earth?

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?

« 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.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?

« on: August 30, 2023, 05:31:15 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.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?

« on: August 27, 2023, 07:52:33 PM »

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?

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?

« on: August 18, 2023, 10:08:18 PM »

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.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?

« on: August 18, 2023, 12:09:10 AM »

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.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?

« on: August 17, 2023, 11:36:51 PM »

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.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?

« on: August 17, 2023, 07:13:40 PM »

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.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?

« 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?