The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Antithecystem on August 20, 2017, 01:12:38 PM
-
I think the earth is probably round, but I think flat earth theorists have made a better case for flat earth than round earthers are crediting them.
However, I don't wish to get into that here.
Who can prove to me the heavens are what NASA claims they are?
At this point all I have is information, not knowledge.
I've been told what the the sun, moon and stars are.
I've been told what their dimensions are, but I haven't observed anything indicating the sun is a million times bigger than the earth, or millions of miles away.
I've observed nothing indicating the stars are suns, or that they're averagely as big as the sun, just millions of times further away.
Where's the proof?
-
I think the earth is probably round, but I think flat earth theorists have made a better case for flat earth than round earthers are crediting them.
However, I don't wish to get into that here.
Who can prove to me the heavens are what NASA claims they are?
At this point all I have is information, not knowledge.
I've been told what the the sun, moon and stars are.
I've been told what their dimensions are, but I haven't observed anything indicating the sun is a million times bigger than the earth, or millions of miles away.
I've observed nothing indicating the stars are suns, or that they're averagely as big as the sun, just millions of times further away.
Where's the proof?
Forget about NASA if you are one of those suffering from the flat earth NASA Paranoia.
An astronomical observatory is the best place to go for proof.
Another thing I would recommend is taking an observatory tour and a night "Star Party."
There was proof long before NASA came into being.
But be assured that the earth is a globe and not some flat disc with an ice ring, et cetera, et cetera, and so forth.
LOL
I won't get into that , too , but IMHO flat earth hasn't made a good case, much less a better case.
-
I think the earth is probably round, but I think flat earth theorists have made a better case for flat earth than round earthers are crediting them.
However, I don't wish to get into that here.
Who can prove to me the heavens are what NASA claims they are?
At this point all I have is information, not knowledge.
I've been told what the the sun, moon and stars are.
I've been told what their dimensions are, but I haven't observed anything indicating the sun is a million times bigger than the earth, or millions of miles away.
I've observed nothing indicating the stars are suns, or that they're averagely as big as the sun, just millions of times further away.
Where's the proof?
Forget about NASA if you are one of those suffering from the flat earth NASA Paranoia.
An astronomical observatory is the best place to go for proof.
But be assured that the earth is a globe and not some flat disc with an ice ring, et cetera, et cetera, and so forth.
LOL
Before I go to a stellar observatory, I'm wondering how it could prove that stars are suns, that suns are millions of times bigger than the earth, and that they're 'light years' away from the earth?
-
And yea I am someone who's 'paranoid', or I would say, cynical, skeptical about NASA's claims, just as I'm careful and cautious about government, or the media, or corporations claims.
I would like to verify at least some of these claims myself, before I adopt their cosmological paradigm, of course I can't verify everything myself in one life time, but to verify none of it, for everyone just to take their word for everything, all the time, is no different than being a Muslim, or a Catholic: 'well the theologians have their reasons for believing what they do, no need to examine any of them ourselves'.
-
NASA and science are big business, the more they claim to know, and the more they make their claims look good, the richer they'll be.
-
Everyone to their own beliefs.
I have made this apology before, but I believe that if you had never worked in some job that depended on the earth being round, you might be taken into this flat earth nonsense.
If you want to learn about something, you have to do some study of it.
You have to do that in the real world.
-
Everyone to their own beliefs.
I have made this apology before, but I believe that if you had never worked in some job that depended on the earth being round, you might be taken into this flat earth nonsense.
If you want to learn about something, you have to do some study of it.
You have to do that in the real world.
We're not talking about FET now, we're talking about the layout of the heavens.
Have you ever been to an astronomical observatory, and if so, how did it help you prove the Sun was 149.6 million kilometers from the earth?
I'm not saying you don't have proof, maybe you do, I just want to see and interpret it for myself.
-
Everyone to their own beliefs.
I have made this apology before, but I believe that if you had never worked in some job that depended on the earth being round, you might be taken into this flat earth nonsense.
If you want to learn about something, you have to do some study of it.
You have to do that in the real world.
We're not talking about FET now, we're talking about the layout of the heavens.
Have you ever been to an astronomical observatory, and if so, how did it help you prove the Sun was 149.6 million kilometers from the earth?
I'm not saying you don't have proof, maybe you do, I just want to see and interpret it for myself.
Then become an astronomer. Don't be taken in by people with claims that sound good. Go learn the subject. I can make a very valid-sounding case for FET, but it would be mostly a lie with enough legitimate stuff tacked on to make it sound plausible. That is how all of these fringe theories survive. Given real scrutiny, they fall apart, but they sound just good enough for curious minds to latch onto. And they are kind of fun to read about.
-
It is very simple. You just have to trust persons who are experts in their fields, such as those at the astronomical observatories to give you the answers. Their job is observing these things.
You just have to trust your instructors. If you don't know little or anything about anything you have to do some study to learn about it. Most engineers and scientists started out in first grade, too, like anyone else. They just continued on studying and learning farther than other persons.
-
It is very simple. You just have to trust persons who are experts in their fields, such as those at the astronomical observatories to give you the answers. You just have to trust your instructors. If you don't know little or anything about anything you have to do some study to learn about it. Most engineers and scientists started out in first grade, too, like anyone else. They just continued on studying and learning farther than other persons.
There you go, trust authority, trust your teachers, professors, doctors, government, the pope, the media, Coca Cola, McDonald's, Walmart, Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
I'll trust them enough to listen to what they're saying, but that's it, if I have questions, I'll ask them, and if I spot what I think are holes in what they're saying, I'll call them out.
I'm not going to trust their claims without something I can empirically verify.
Most teachers don't verify anything they've been taught, so they actually don't know anything.
Engineers can often use what they've been taught, so I take little issue with that.
That's actually probably the best form of verification, being able to use something.
If you can use it than they must be right about something, althou they may not be verifying everything they're teaching.
The trouble is no one, except for NASA and some other government space agencies can supposedly use 'factoids' like the sun is 149.6 (I love how specific they are about something they've never been to, and can never go to. Not 150 million kilometers, 149.6, how do you like that? Next year they'll say it's actually 149.8, and a few decades from now they'll say it's actually 188.295. Derrr, can we all just agree it's really, fragging far??? But that's just it, maybe it's much, much closer...or further than they think or say they know.) million kilometers away, so you can't verify it that way, by using it to do something the way an engineer does, so how can you verify it?
-
It is very simple. You just have to trust persons who are experts in their fields, such as those at the astronomical observatories to give you the answers. You just have to trust your instructors. If you don't know little or anything about anything you have to do some study to learn about it. Most engineers and scientists started out in first grade, too, like anyone else. They just continued on studying and learning farther than other persons.
There you go, trust authority, trust your teachers, professors, doctors, government, the pope, the media, Coca Cola, McDonald's, Walmart, Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
I'll trust them enough to listen to what they're saying, but that's it, if I have questions, I'll ask them, and if I spot what I think are holes in what they're saying, I'll call them out.
I'm not going to trust their claims without something I can empirically verify.
Most teachers don't verify anything they've been taught, so they actually don't know anything.
Engineers can often use what they've been taught, so I take little issue with that.
That's actually probably the best form of verification, being able to use something.
If you can use it than they must be right about something, althou they may not be verifying everything they're teaching.
The trouble is no one, except for NASA and some other government space agencies can supposedly use 'factoids' like the sun is 149.6 (I love how specific they are about something they've never been to, and can never go to. Not 150 million kilometers, 149.6, how do you like that? Next year they'll say it's actually 149.8, and a few decades from now they'll say it's actually 188.295. Derrr, can we all just agree it's really, fragging far??? But that's just it, maybe it's much, much closer...or further than they think or say they know.) million kilometers away, so you can't verify it that way, by using it to do something the way an engineer does, so how can you verify it?
If that is the way you think, if you will pardon me for saying it, if it is true that you think that way, you would be a hopeless case if you ever expected to get a job in the real world in any field of science or engineering. Maybe you are in some other occupation where you don't need to know these things.
I could give you an example of my own experiences but I have suspicions you would not believe me.
So.......I think I 'll just give it up as a lost cause , bow out and leave it to anyone else who wants to have a go at it with you.
.
-
It is very simple. You just have to trust persons who are experts in their fields, such as those at the astronomical observatories to give you the answers. You just have to trust your instructors. If you don't know little or anything about anything you have to do some study to learn about it. Most engineers and scientists started out in first grade, too, like anyone else. They just continued on studying and learning farther than other persons.
There you go, trust authority, trust your teachers, professors, doctors, government, the pope, the media, Coca Cola, McDonald's, Walmart, Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
I'll trust them enough to listen to what they're saying, but that's it, if I have questions, I'll ask them, and if I spot what I think are holes in what they're saying, I'll call them out.
I'm not going to trust their claims without something I can empirically verify.
Most teachers don't verify anything they've been taught, so they actually don't know anything.
Engineers can often use what they've been taught, so I take little issue with that.
That's actually probably the best form of verification, being able to use something.
If you can use it than they must be right about something, althou they may not be verifying everything they're teaching.
The trouble is no one, except for NASA and some other government space agencies can supposedly use 'factoids' like the sun is 149.6 (I love how specific they are about something they've never been to, and can never go to. Not 150 million kilometers, 149.6, how do you like that? Next year they'll say it's actually 149.8, and a few decades from now they'll say it's actually 188.295. Derrr, can we all just agree it's really, fragging far??? But that's just it, maybe it's much, much closer...or further than they think or say they know.) million kilometers away, so you can't verify it that way, by using it to do something the way an engineer does, so how can you verify it?
Maybe this discussion might best be considered closed
But if or if not, a few thoughts.
How many courses have you taken where you have classroom hours on theory and then more class room hours following in lab proving and verifying the theories ?
Getting back to the subject, are you saying you wouldn't trust anyone at an observatory ?
How much do you know about how they measured those distances ?
-
Why does he have to trust authority? Why can't he know for himself?
-
Why does he have to trust authority? Why can't he know for himself?
Well......"The distance from New York to Paris is unknown."
-
I'll trust them enough to listen to what they're saying, but that's it, if I have questions, I'll ask them, and if I spot what I think are holes in what they're saying, I'll call them out.
I'm not going to trust their claims without something I can empirically verify.
What makes you think that you are even remotely qualified or capable of verifying things empirically? I don't mean that in a nasty way, but what training or special mental capabilities do you possess that qualifies you to verify everything? No one can verify everything.
The trust thing - you don't have to trust one teacher or individual. You trust the body of knowledge because it has been tested an verified to the extents possible. Nothing is 100%, but we have amassed a lot of knowledge that people use to get work done. Do you ever doubt that flipping the light switch in your home will result in the light coming on? (assuming there isn't a blackout, of course) Did you ever verify that quadrillions of electrons are flowing back and forth 60x every second in the light bulb? No, you don't have to or need to. People have already figured it out and it works. You can use that knowledge reliably, but you can't empirically verify it. Nothing in life is 100% and eventually, you either trust that the whole world isn't pulling the wool over your eyes, or you go down the rabbit hole and start believing things like the Earth is flat even though we can and have proven over and over and over again that is certainly not.
-
Why does he have to trust authority? Why can't he know for himself?
Well......"The distance from New York to Paris is unknown."
QFT - Tom also doesn't know why the sun and moon supposedly bob up and down in the sky, he just trusts that they do based on zero evidence.
-
Why does he have to trust authority? Why can't he know for himself?
Well......"The distance from New York to Paris is unknown."
QFT - Tom also doesn't know why the sun and moon supposedly bob up and down in the sky, he just trusts that they do based on zero evidence.
I think one explanation was that they "wobble" up and down and somehow to manage to not collide with each other. They are both at the same distance from the earth (3000 miles) and the same size (32 miles in diameter.) Unless the moon and the sun don't travel at the same speed on a flat earth , they would be bound to collide at some point in time ?
But maybe moon and sun travel at the same speed on a flat earth ? One animated drawing shows them traveling at the same speed and always spaced 180 degrees apart. It is always sunlight on one side of the earth and moonlight on the other side at the same time.
Observatories have never observed this "wobble." Oh.....I know. They have observed it, but lied that they haven't....Part of "The Great Round Earth Conspiracy" you know.
-
Why does he have to trust authority? Why can't he know for himself?
How ?
-
Why are you attempting to go off topic? Why can't you just address the OP's inquiry?
-
It is very simple. You just have to trust persons who are experts in their fields, such as those at the astronomical observatories to give you the answers. You just have to trust your instructors. If you don't know little or anything about anything you have to do some study to learn about it. Most engineers and scientists started out in first grade, too, like anyone else. They just continued on studying and learning farther than other persons.
There you go, trust authority, trust your teachers, professors, doctors, government, the pope, the media, Coca Cola, McDonald's, Walmart, Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
I'll trust them enough to listen to what they're saying, but that's it, if I have questions, I'll ask them, and if I spot what I think are holes in what they're saying, I'll call them out.
I'm not going to trust their claims without something I can empirically verify.
Most teachers don't verify anything they've been taught, so they actually don't know anything.
Engineers can often use what they've been taught, so I take little issue with that.
That's actually probably the best form of verification, being able to use something.
If you can use it than they must be right about something, althou they may not be verifying everything they're teaching.
The trouble is no one, except for NASA and some other government space agencies can supposedly use 'factoids' like the sun is 149.6 (I love how specific they are about something they've never been to, and can never go to. Not 150 million kilometers, 149.6, how do you like that? Next year they'll say it's actually 149.8, and a few decades from now they'll say it's actually 188.295. Derrr, can we all just agree it's really, fragging far??? But that's just it, maybe it's much, much closer...or further than they think or say they know.) million kilometers away, so you can't verify it that way, by using it to do something the way an engineer does, so how can you verify it?
If that is the way you think, if you will pardon me for saying it, if it is true that you think that way, you would be a hopeless case if you ever expected to get a job in the real world in any field of science or engineering. Maybe you are in some other occupation where you don't need to know these things.
I could give you an example of my own experiences but I have suspicions you would not believe me.
So.......I think I 'll just give it up as a lost cause , bow out and leave it to anyone else who wants to have a go at it with you.
.
There's a time to question and critique, and a time not to question and critique, in fact, it's been said there's a time for everything under the sun.
If you want to play it safe, and believe everything your professors tell you, you can become a professor, scientist or engineer yourself, albeit a mediocre, unremarkable one.
But if you want to think outside the box, be imaginative, creative, and reasonably critical of the information you've receive, you may advance your field in bold, new and fruitful directions.
I don't know why you're so black/white, I'm not being black/white, at least I don't think I am.
Just because you question some things, some times, doesn't mean you have to question everything, all the time.
Life and thought are, and ought to be more nuanced than that.
-
It is very simple. You just have to trust persons who are experts in their fields, such as those at the astronomical observatories to give you the answers. You just have to trust your instructors. If you don't know little or anything about anything you have to do some study to learn about it. Most engineers and scientists started out in first grade, too, like anyone else. They just continued on studying and learning farther than other persons.
There you go, trust authority, trust your teachers, professors, doctors, government, the pope, the media, Coca Cola, McDonald's, Walmart, Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
I'll trust them enough to listen to what they're saying, but that's it, if I have questions, I'll ask them, and if I spot what I think are holes in what they're saying, I'll call them out.
I'm not going to trust their claims without something I can empirically verify.
Most teachers don't verify anything they've been taught, so they actually don't know anything.
Engineers can often use what they've been taught, so I take little issue with that.
That's actually probably the best form of verification, being able to use something.
If you can use it than they must be right about something, althou they may not be verifying everything they're teaching.
The trouble is no one, except for NASA and some other government space agencies can supposedly use 'factoids' like the sun is 149.6 (I love how specific they are about something they've never been to, and can never go to. Not 150 million kilometers, 149.6, how do you like that? Next year they'll say it's actually 149.8, and a few decades from now they'll say it's actually 188.295. Derrr, can we all just agree it's really, fragging far??? But that's just it, maybe it's much, much closer...or further than they think or say they know.) million kilometers away, so you can't verify it that way, by using it to do something the way an engineer does, so how can you verify it?
Maybe this discussion might best be considered closed
But if or if not, a few thoughts.
How many courses have you taken where you have classroom hours on theory and then more class room hours following in lab proving and verifying the theories ?
Getting back to the subject, are you saying you wouldn't trust anyone at an observatory ?
How much do you know about how they measured those distances ?
No, I would trust them very little.
I would listen to their claims, and use the observatory and whatever other means I had at my disposal to verify those claims.
Of course I couldn't verify every claim astronomers have ever made, but I'd at least attempt to verify the basics, like how far the moon is from the earth, how far the moon is from the sun and so on, and if I couldn't verify them to my satisfaction, I wouldn't believe them and I'd make why I don't believe them known to the public via social media.
However if they checked out, I'd be more trusting of mainstream astronomy and science in general in the future, but not absolutely so.
You see theirs degrees of trust, you're selling a false dichotomy, where either we accept everything mainstream science has to say all the time, in spite of whatever our experience, reason (not only our individual experience and reason, but the collective experience and reason of our society as a whole aka common sense), alternative research and intuition is telling us, in spite of the fact that so few people ever have a chance to verify some of their claims, in spite of how much money and politics are being thrown at some of their claims, in spite of how complicated, convoluted and far fetched some of their claims can be, how assumption, culture, language bound and riddled their interpretations of that data can be, or...throw the baby out with the bathwater sort of speak, stick our fingers in our ears and go crawl under a rock somewhere, never to pick up another book or use another piece of technology again.
There's a difference between faith and trust for me, the way I define them.
I have faith in almost nothing, I have trust in some things, but my trust must be earned, authority of itself is insufficient.
In spite of the fact they've been caught by others and themselves knowingly and unknowingly exaggerating their claims thousands of times, like how they used to tell us sugar and tobacco were harmless, even good for us.
-
So what do you want people here to tell you? You're all over the place and your questions have been answered. If you don't trust then go do the research. As far as the heavens go, our ships and probes get where they are going. That is a start. Look up how the distance to the sun was calculated before NASA existed. I don't know what more you expect from a forum.
-
I'll trust them enough to listen to what they're saying, but that's it, if I have questions, I'll ask them, and if I spot what I think are holes in what they're saying, I'll call them out.
I'm not going to trust their claims without something I can empirically verify.
What makes you think that you are even remotely qualified or capable of verifying things empirically? I don't mean that in a nasty way, but what training or special mental capabilities do you possess that qualifies you to verify everything? No one can verify everything.
The trust thing - you don't have to trust one teacher or individual. You trust the body of knowledge because it has been tested an verified to the extents possible. Nothing is 100%, but we have amassed a lot of knowledge that people use to get work done. Do you ever doubt that flipping the light switch in your home will result in the light coming on? (assuming there isn't a blackout, of course) Did you ever verify that quadrillions of electrons are flowing back and forth 60x every second in the light bulb? No, you don't have to or need to. People have already figured it out and it works. You can use that knowledge reliably, but you can't empirically verify it. Nothing in life is 100% and eventually, you either trust that the whole world isn't pulling the wool over your eyes, or you go down the rabbit hole and start believing things like the Earth is flat even though we can and have proven over and over and over again that is certainly not.
I'm not intellectually nor financially able to verify everything, all the time.
I'm not omnipresent, nor immortal, so I'm not physically able to test every claim, there's too many of them.
But I am able to verify some things, some times, and some things are more in need of verification than others, some claims mainline science makes are harder to believe than others.
I also have a rough idea of what's in and out of my league, for example I know stuff with complicated math is beyond me, I'd have to do a lot of studying just to keep up and even then, I might have trouble.
However, in order to earn my trust, you have to show me some things I can verify, and then maybe I'll be more willing to believe the things I can't.
Yea they have some impressive gadgets and gizmos, so they must know what they're doing on some level.
Some of the science we're privy to must be accurate and not mistaken, exaggerated or an outright lie, but that doesn't mean all or even much of it isn't mistaken, exaggerated or an outright lie.
When it comes to astronomy, I feel very little has been proven to me.
I have little idea what's up there in outer space, or what they're doing up there, very few people really do.
-
The eclipse today was an excellent example of how much we really do know. I knew down to the minute when the eclipse would start, when it would reach maximum for my location, and when it would end. I also know that in 7 years, another total eclipse is going to pass right over where I live. In order to pull that off, astronomers have to know the exact (more or less) sizes, distances, relative locations, and relative motion of the Earth, Moon and Sun. That is extremely impressive when you think about it. Maybe that can be a source of trust that they know what is going on up there. This doesn't even touch on the cyclical meteor showers and comet visits that occur. Not to mention the actual spacecraft we have orbiting other plants right now. They know what is up, if you'll forgive the pun.
-
The eclipse today was an excellent example of how much we really do know. I knew down to the minute when the eclipse would start, when it would reach maximum for my location, and when it would end. I also know that in 7 years, another total eclipse is going to pass right over where I live. In order to pull that off, astronomers have to know the exact (more or less) sizes, distances, relative locations, and relative motion of the Earth, Moon and Sun. That is extremely impressive when you think about it. Maybe that can be a source of trust that they know what is going on up there. This doesn't even touch on the cyclical meteor showers and comet visits that occur. Not to mention the actual spacecraft we have orbiting other plants right now. They know what is up, if you'll forgive the pun.
We were able to predict eclipses and things thousands of years ago, when we were geocentrists.
As for asteroids, comets and meteors, that is impressive, but still I would like to know more about why they think they know the sun is blah blah miles away and so on.
When it comes to astronomy, the 2 dimensional part, the up/down, left/right part, they seem to be able to predict it accurately, but I'm wondering about the three dimensional part, the forward/backward part.
That's not something they can easily prove to us.
Yes I'd like to both discuss this part on this forum, and look further into it on my own.
Another thing that can't easily be proven to us is what is outer space.
Is it really completely empty?
What's going on up there?
-
The eclipse today was an excellent example of how much we really do know. I knew down to the minute when the eclipse would start, when it would reach maximum for my location, and when it would end. I also know that in 7 years, another total eclipse is going to pass right over where I live. In order to pull that off, astronomers have to know the exact (more or less) sizes, distances, relative locations, and relative motion of the Earth, Moon and Sun. That is extremely impressive when you think about it. Maybe that can be a source of trust that they know what is going on up there. This doesn't even touch on the cyclical meteor showers and comet visits that occur. Not to mention the actual spacecraft we have orbiting other plants right now. They know what is up, if you'll forgive the pun.
We were able to predict eclipses and things thousands of years ago, when we were geocentrists.
As for asteroids, comets and meteors, that is impressive, but still I would like to know more about why they think they know the sun is blah blah miles away and so on.
When it comes to astronomy, the 2 dimensional part, the up/down, left/right part, they seem to be able to predict it accurately, but I'm wondering about the three dimensional part, the forward/backward part.
That's not something they can easily prove to us.
Yes I'd like to both discuss this part on this forum, and look further into it on my own.
Another thing that can't easily be proven to us is what is outer space.
Is it really completely empty?
What's going on up there?
For the record, the Saros cycle appears to have most likely been created by the Neo-Babylonian astronomer's, who appear to have had a heliocentric view of the solar system. That being one of the major models used to predict eclipses.
For the motions, we have formula to predict that. I know you said you don't do complex math, but so many proofs are tied up in that it's going to be difficult to impossible to show you things like heavenly movement without it.
Outer space can be somewhat simulated here on Earth. Creating a vacuum is extremely close to what we call outer space. There's still the issue of too much gravity, but it IS pretty close to what we're told is up there. I'm not sure if you can make a true vacuum at home, nor what you might do with it to help understand space even if you could.
As for distance, here (http://howdoweknow.org/index/solardistance.hdwk) is a not too bad bit on how we know the distance to the sun, and other planets.
-
The eclipse today was an excellent example of how much we really do know. I knew down to the minute when the eclipse would start, when it would reach maximum for my location, and when it would end. I also know that in 7 years, another total eclipse is going to pass right over where I live. In order to pull that off, astronomers have to know the exact (more or less) sizes, distances, relative locations, and relative motion of the Earth, Moon and Sun. That is extremely impressive when you think about it. Maybe that can be a source of trust that they know what is going on up there. This doesn't even touch on the cyclical meteor showers and comet visits that occur. Not to mention the actual spacecraft we have orbiting other plants right now. They know what is up, if you'll forgive the pun.
We were able to predict eclipses and things thousands of years ago, when we were geocentrists.
As for asteroids, comets and meteors, that is impressive, but still I would like to know more about why they think they know the sun is blah blah miles away and so on.
When it comes to astronomy, the 2 dimensional part, the up/down, left/right part, they seem to be able to predict it accurately, but I'm wondering about the three dimensional part, the forward/backward part.
That's not something they can easily prove to us.
Yes I'd like to both discuss this part on this forum, and look further into it on my own.
Another thing that can't easily be proven to us is what is outer space.
Is it really completely empty?
What's going on up there?
The Earth is round in the geocentric model. They thought the sun and planets orbited the Earth.
How they calculated eclipses - http://www.popsci.com/people-have-been-able-to-predict-eclipses-for-really-long-time-heres-how#page-4
It sounds like you have a great deal of curiosity about space and astronomy. From the tone of your questions, I assume you are relatively young. You should get into astronomy (if you haven't already) and apply your curiosity. Skepticism and curiosity can go a long way in the sciences. All the best.