The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Woody on March 03, 2016, 06:00:59 PM

Title: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Woody on March 03, 2016, 06:00:59 PM: May 9th of this year Mercury will transit and can be observed from 11:12-18:42 UT.

IMHO if it happens as predicted it is a very good validation of the RE model.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 03, 2016, 06:36:59 PM: I dont think so, do you think the Mayans couldn't predict the transit of Venus?

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/06/04/transit-venus-and-mayans-115435

They believed the Earth was flat. So to me this doesn't prove anything.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: markjo on March 03, 2016, 09:23:31 PM: The Mayans didn't really travel very far, so the shape of the earth probably didn't really matter to them.

The ancient Greeks, on the other hand, did travel far and wide enough so that the shape of the earth did matter to them.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 03, 2016, 09:37:58 PM: Quote from: markjo on March 03, 2016, 09:23:31 PM
The Mayans didn't really travel very far, so the shape of the earth probably didn't really matter to them.

The ancient Greeks, on the other hand, did travel far and wide enough so that the shape of the earth did matter to them.

The point is they predicted the motions of planets and phenomena like eclipses without knowledge or regard for the shape of the earth, other than the assumption it was flat.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: geckothegeek on March 03, 2016, 10:03:18 PM: I think...and again this is just one more of my well known "IMHO"'s....Was that Rowbotham's success in his lectures was that the average Englishman in those days didn't really travel very far so the shape of the earth didn't really matter to them.

Rowbotham was probably fairly well learned in at least the simple facts or basics about the earth but was clever enough to twist many of them into just the opposite to fit in with his so-called "flat earth theories". And he was also a fairly good orator and could make all of his talks sound very scientific to the average Englishman of that time, combined with a lot of double-talk verbiage. That was the reason why he was accepted as some sort of an expert by many in his time.

But all of this looks rather erroneous today.And the best that flat-earthers seem to be able to do today is simply deny most of the facts that we know about the earth today.

At least that's my impression of The Flat Earth Society for what it's worth.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Thork on March 03, 2016, 11:06:56 PM: Quote from: markjo on March 03, 2016, 09:23:31 PM
The Mayans didn't really travel very far, so the shape of the earth probably didn't really matter to them.

The ancient Greeks, on the other hand, did travel far and wide enough so that the shape of the earth did matter to them.
Demonstrably false. Below a map of the known world for ancient Greeks.

(http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/33000000/Ancient-Greek-View-of-Known-World-ancient-greece-33063954-572-620.jpg)

You must stop just making things up to fit your corrupt view on earth's shape. It doesn't stand up to real examination.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Thork on March 03, 2016, 11:11:07 PM: The Mayan Known World was of very similar size and the empire stretched over a much greater area than the Greek one.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Mayan_Language_Migration_Map.svg/2000px-Mayan_Language_Migration_Map.svg.png)
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Bookish Neptune on March 05, 2016, 11:57:21 PM: Quote from: Woody on March 03, 2016, 06:00:59 PM

IMHO if it happens as predicted it is a very good validation of the RE model.

No.

When you yourself sits (for however long needed) in a candle lit room with nothing more than a window, telescope, pencil, and paper and YOU can predict when this will occur, then that will be validation.

Until then, you and every other RE'er are riding on the coattails of other men and THEIR math.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Woody on March 06, 2016, 01:21:52 AM: Quote from: Bookish Neptune on March 05, 2016, 11:57:21 PM
Quote from: Woody on March 03, 2016, 06:00:59 PM

IMHO if it happens as predicted it is a very good validation of the RE model.

No.

When you yourself sits (for however long needed) in a candle lit room with nothing more than a window, telescope, pencil, and paper and YOU can predict when this will occur, then that will be validation.

Until then, you and every other RE'er are riding on the coattails of other men and THEIR math.

I am starting to think people truly believing the earth is flat fail to look collectively at the evidence. It seems that look at one thing and nothing else. I am not saying this proves the Earth is spherical, but it is a validation of the claim.

If not what is traveling between us and the sun? It means for the FE model something is either revolving around the sun, something at some altitude is traveling in the atmosphere or it is a spot that travels across the sun that can be predicted.

I also use tide tables and they are reliable I have not yet used a tide table that was wrong. Like the transit of Mercury if I am told a prediction and it is consistently right why would I question it? Consistently being right is good enough proof for me.

As an example I will use the Mayans predictions of eclipses. They were not accurate but within about 2 weeks of when they would likely occur. Sometimes they were right other times they were not. The problem they had they assumed they lived on a flat planet.

The Chinese did a little better with their hemispherical earth and celestial sphere model.

The Greeks made the Antikythera mechanism which is very reliable at predicting eclipses, with in two hours, and the reason just maybe they were making predictions based on a round Earth.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: rabinoz on March 06, 2016, 01:27:06 AM: Quote from: Bookish Neptune on March 05, 2016, 11:57:21 PM
Quote from: Woody on March 03, 2016, 06:00:59 PM

IMHO if it happens as predicted it is a very good validation of the RE model.

No.

When you yourself sits (for however long needed) in a candle lit room with nothing more than a window, telescope, pencil, and paper and YOU can predict when this will occur, then that will be validation.

Until then, you and every other RE'er are riding on the coattails of other men and THEIR math.
"Your" Wiki claims that:
Quote
The Lunar Eclipse
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter. Since it is somewhat close to the sun the manifestation of its penumbra upon the moon appears as a magnified projection. This is similar to how during a shadow puppet show your hand's shadow can make a large magnified projection upon your bedroom wall as you move it closer to the flashlight.

I could say to you.
"When you yourself sits (for however long needed) in a candle lit room with nothing more than a window, telescope, pencil, and paper and YOU see that shadow object, then that will be validation.

Until then, you and every other Flat Earther is riding on the coattails of other men and THEIR guesses. Guesses, because no-one has ever seen it.

The bit I quoted, like so much in "the Wiki" is pure guesswork, without any observation.
Essentially all the theories in the Heliocentric Global Earth are backed up by numerous observations.

All of the Flat Earth supporters are completely hypocrital in this regard. When asked a question, you demand personal observation, yet so much of your "theory" is based on simply guesswork and I fail to see how you can deny this.

If you do deny this I am sure I can come up with hundreds of things in FE "theory" that YOU have not personally verified and an almost equal number that no-one has ever verified.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Bookish Neptune on March 06, 2016, 02:01:32 AM: Quote from: rabinoz on March 06, 2016, 01:27:06 AM

"Your" Wiki claims that:

That was a lot of words directed at someone who isn't a flat earther. Nor am I a round earther.

I simply believe what I can and have observed.

What I know for a fact however, is that every single last drop of so called astronomy is an illusion of mathematics conjured up by highly paid mathematicians. Nothing more.

And where the math has gaps, more math is conjured up. When more gaps are to be filled, names are given to the unknown.

Black Holes, Dark Matter, Gravitational Waves.....

Pencil on paper doesn't prove anything at all. FE or RE.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: rabinoz on March 06, 2016, 03:57:35 AM: Quote from: Bookish Neptune on March 06, 2016, 02:01:32 AM
Quote from: rabinoz on March 06, 2016, 01:27:06 AM
"Your" Wiki claims that:
That was a lot of words directed at someone who isn't a flat earther. Nor am I a round earther.
I simply believe what I can and have observed.
What I know for a fact however, is that every single last drop of so called astronomy is an illusion of mathematics conjured up by highly paid mathematicians. Nothing more.
And where the math has gaps, more math is conjured up. When more gaps are to be filled, names are given to the unknown.
Black Holes, Dark Matter, Gravitational Waves.....
Pencil on paper doesn't prove anything at all. FE or RE.
You claim "every single last drop of so called astronomy is an illusion of mathematics conjured up by highly paid mathematicians". That is completely false!

Astronomy is not "Black Holes, Dark Matter, Gravitational Waves", that is largely in the realm of "cosmology" which might be based on astronomy, but seeks to explain the "why", though "Black Holes" are objects that are near enough to being "observed" as MIGHT be "Gravitational Waves".

Astronomy (and astrology in the BC era) has been around for millenia, and is all about observation. In the earliest days simply by eye with simple angle measuring devices and finally (around Galileo's time) with telescopes of growing size and sophistication. I find it truly amazing what some of these people recorded simply with pen and paper!

So, what are you an "earth agnostic".

Yes, you are correct with "Pencil on paper doesn't prove anything at all", but I believe that you have to take some notice of what others have reported.
It does seem strange that so many seem to quite happily utilise the result of hundreds of years of observation, experimentation and validating (or disproving) hypotheses in so many areas.

Yet when it comes to results, in a few areas those same people "can't understand" (or some reason) such as gravitation, shape of the earth or the rotation of the earth we simply choose to disregard the work of those same "researchers".
Two early scientists (or whatever you choose to call them couls be used as an example), Newton and Cavendish.

Isaac Newton did considerable work apart from his "Theory of Gravitation", on optics, mechanics, mathematics (possibly "invented" calculus), chemistry (and alchemy - yes, they did not know about elements and atoms then). So why choose to ridicule his ideas on gravitation.

Henry Cavendish was a highly regarded scientists in his day, and did a lot of the early work in the chemistry of gases, synthesis of water, etc. He had a reputation as a very meticulous experimenter. No-one questions his work in these areas, yet there seem to be quite a few who do not want to believe in gravitation that ridicule what has been known as "The Cavendish Experiment".

I guess I have bored you to tears already (sorry), but my point is that we have to take (selectively) notice of the observations made by others. Life is not long enough to make all the mistakes ourselves, so try to learn from others.

I am not saying that we "swallow" everything that these "scientists" came up with. We regard Galileo highly, yet many of his theories have not stood the test of time.

It's even the same with Newton, some of his ideas on the nature of light were initially proved not completely correct. His "Laws of Motion" are still very useful, but superseded by Einsten's GR in extreme cases.

None of this proves that these people were trying to mislead, they were simply of their time.

So, no you cannot go through life simply based on your own observations, and I you take careful note I doubt that you do. You base so much of what you do on the findings of others in technology (you "more or less" trust the internet - like I do), you trust that public transport will get there based on others say so, you have medical treatment trusting (or not maybe!) to reports that it is effective.

I don't know about you, but many say they live their life based on their own observations, yet implicitly so many things they do and use are based on what others have observed.

Well, I will really stop now!

E&OE - probably lots of them!