dirtysnowball

The Earth Stands Fast
« on: July 17, 2019, 10:46:19 PM »
Under 'additions to the library, Tom posts a reference to

Quote
I came across a geocentric work by Professor C. Schoepffer in the year 1900 called The Earth Stands Fast.

Early on in the publication, there is a sub-title which reads 'Proofs that the Earth revolves neither upon its own axis nor yet about the Sun'

If that is the case then what is the cause of the observed motion of the celestial bodies about the Earth?  This motion is observed in real time when one looks through an undriven telescope. What causes that motion if it is not the rotation of the Earth?

This concerns me because during the last 40 years that I have been showing people various targets through telescopes and they ask why the object is seen moving across the field of view, I have been telling them they are seeing the rotation of the Earth.  It seems that I must have been (unintentionally) lying to them?

« Last Edit: July 17, 2019, 10:49:58 PM by dirtysnowball »

*

Offline kopfverderber

  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Atheist
    • View Profile
Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2019, 05:48:07 AM »
The book is actually a translation of a German book from 1853

This is the author
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sch%C3%B6pfer

And the original title:
Die Erde stehet fest. Beweise, daß die Erde sich weder um ihre Achse noch um die Sonne dreht, Berlin 1853

As for your question,  the rotation of the earth is a well known fact, but you already know this.
"What giants?" said Sancho Panza.

"Those thou seest there," answered his master, "with the long arms, and some have them nearly two leagues long."

"Look, your worship," said Sancho; "what we see there are not giants but windmills, and what seem to be their arms are the sails that turned by the wind make the millstone go."

dirtysnowball

Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2019, 05:52:23 AM »
Yes I know it does.

But this book that Tom has made reference to under 'Additions to Library' is suggesting is suggesting it doesn't. This seems to be a part of FET and so my question is aimed at the FE side to come up with a solution about what is making the heavens rotate around us if the Earth (according to them) neither rotates or orbits the Sun.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6474
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2019, 06:05:37 AM »
Why should anything need to keep the fixed stars spinning? If there is microgravity in space then the system or 'firmament' can be kept rotating for the same reason that a fidget spinner would spin essentially forever in space.

dirtysnowball

Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2019, 06:50:52 AM »
Or you could simply say that the Earth is rotating on its own axis and thereby making the heavens appear to be spinning or rotating above us. Call it cause and effect.


*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2019, 07:20:01 AM »
Why should anything need to keep the fixed stars spinning? If there is microgravity in space then the system or 'firmament' can be kept rotating for the same reason that a fidget spinner would spin essentially forever in space.

Seems reasonable. However, does FET have knowledge of any microgravity in space? And if so how?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline kopfverderber

  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Atheist
    • View Profile
Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2019, 07:42:06 AM »
Why should anything need to keep the fixed stars spinning? If there is microgravity in space then the system or 'firmament' can be kept rotating for the same reason that a fidget spinner would spin essentially forever in space.

That's a very clever idea. Is there information about the axis of the firmament? Like its position, movement and inclination respective to earth?
"What giants?" said Sancho Panza.

"Those thou seest there," answered his master, "with the long arms, and some have them nearly two leagues long."

"Look, your worship," said Sancho; "what we see there are not giants but windmills, and what seem to be their arms are the sails that turned by the wind make the millstone go."

Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2019, 09:53:39 AM »
Why should anything need to keep the fixed stars spinning? If there is microgravity in space then the system or 'firmament' can be kept rotating for the same reason that a fidget spinner would spin essentially forever in space.

If you're saying the stars and other celestial are fixed to some rotating dome then I guess you're correct.
But the sun and the moon are not fixed to it, are they?
A body will tend to remain stationary or continue at a constant velocity (note, velocity - that includes direction) unless acted on by a force.
So for the sun to be circling above us a force would have to be constantly applied to keep it going in a circle (and to make the radius of its orbit keep changing for the seasons)
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 416
    • View Profile
Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2019, 10:01:46 AM »
Why should anything need to keep the fixed stars spinning? If there is microgravity in space then the system or 'firmament' can be kept rotating for the same reason that a fidget spinner would spin essentially forever in space.
What about 'strange' movements of planets that do not simply visibly rotate above the earth? Take Mars for example when it does a loop on itself which can be explained by the movement of the earth and mars in relation to their orbits of the sun. It's not just a constant rotation like a fidget spinner if the earth is flat and stationary.

Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

dirtysnowball

Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2019, 01:53:57 PM »
I am all in favour of seeking alternative models/theories when it is necessary to 'fill in the holes'. For example Newtonian gravity survived adequately until the early 20th century when Einsteins GTR proved to be a better explanation overall. Our understanding of gravity had evolved and so had to be refined.  That is what science is all about.

As far as I know the heliocentric model of the solar system where the Earth rotates on its axis and orbits the Sun has been doing a pretty good job of explaining the events and phenomenon that we see in the night sky. So where is the need for an alternative approch like FET? You cannot make a base pre-assertion (that the Earth is flat for example) and then try to work everything we see and experience so that it fits in with that pre-assertion.

Certain observations, such as the retrograde motion of the (superior) planets that ChrisTP describes above is explained simply and logically in heliocentrism where as FET seems to have to produce all sorts or weird and complex geometrical shapes and patterns to create the same effect. 
« Last Edit: July 18, 2019, 04:05:41 PM by dirtysnowball »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6474
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2019, 09:05:39 PM »
The Retrograde Motion of the planets was determined by Copernicus. The planets are moving around the Sun to make those shapes.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Retrograde_Motion_of_the_Planets

However, he never demonstrated that Earth is a planet.

I am all in favour of seeking alternative models/theories when it is necessary to 'fill in the holes'. For example Newtonian gravity survived adequately until the early 20th century when Einsteins GTR proved to be a better explanation overall. Our understanding of gravity had evolved and so had to be refined.  That is what science is all about.

As far as I know the heliocentric model of the solar system where the Earth rotates on its axis and orbits the Sun has been doing a pretty good job of explaining the events and phenomenon that we see in the night sky. So where is the need for an alternative approch like FET? You cannot make a base pre-assertion (that the Earth is flat for example) and then try to work everything we see and experience so that it fits in with that pre-assertion.

Certain observations, such as the retrograde motion of the (superior) planets that ChrisTP describes above is explained simply and logically in heliocentrism where as FET seems to have to produce all sorts or weird and complex geometrical shapes and patterns to create the same effect.

These three experiments don't seem to agree with Heliocentrism:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment
https://wiki.tfes.org/Airy%27s_Failure
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment

The Wang Experiment appears to directly contradict the RE explanation for the MM and AF experiments.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2019, 05:32:52 AM by Tom Bishop »

dirtysnowball

Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« Reply #11 on: July 18, 2019, 09:09:20 PM »
Quote
However, he never demonstrated that Earth is a planet.

So what to your mind then Tom is the definition of a planet?  And hence from that how exactly do you 'demonstrate' a planet to someone?

Oh yes and as I understand it the Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to 'demonstrate' the existence of the aether.  Something that it never succeeded in doing. Of course the context and details of the description of the experiment as described in your FE Wiki link is a little different to that given elsewhere.  Almost as if the FE Wiki description is a manipulated version of the experiment to suit a particular point of view.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2019, 09:21:27 PM by dirtysnowball »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6474
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2019, 02:48:04 AM »
Aether was just postulated as the background medium to space which light travels through, like sound through the air or ripples through the water. A wave needs a medium to propagate through, so it was deducted that space was not truly empty.

Morley wrote to his father that the purpose of the MM experiment was “to see if light travels with the same velocity in all directions.” The result was that it did travel the same velocity in all (horizontal) directions.

But how could that be if the earth is in motion?

The RE explanation (SR) that was given; that light is consistent in speed for all observers, was contradicted by the Sagnac and Wang experiments, where light does change velocity for different observers, even to velocities greater than c: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment#Wang_Experiment

Quote
However, he never demonstrated that Earth is a planet.

So what to your mind then Tom is the definition of a planet?  And hence from that how exactly do you 'demonstrate' a planet to someone?

A planet has been historically defined as a 'wandering star'. It was mainly through ancient reasoning that it was deduced that Earth was a similar wandering body in the solar system which we observe above us.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2019, 05:35:15 AM by Tom Bishop »

dirtysnowball

Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2019, 05:56:43 AM »
You do seem to cling on to all the 'ancient reasonings' when it comes to astronomy and all things celestial don't you Tom. While ignoring all the progress that has been made since then which has changed our interpretations and understanding of the subject.  Is that because the interpretations of the ancients fell better in line with your current beliefs?

Just because modern astronomy has changed those interpretations it doesn't mean it is wrong. That is progress and what science is all about. 

Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2019, 06:05:10 AM »

These three experiments don't seem to agree with Heliocentrism:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment


This experiment was to determine if the aether exists or not. Scientists back them mostly believed that the aether exists. But with science (unlike flat earth), you just don't believe, but you have to verify your assumption experimentally. That is the Michelson-Morley_Experiment.

To the great surprise of the scientists, the experiment did not confirm the existence of the aether. The aether does not exist!

But, as scientists (unlike flat earthers), they have to adapt to the new knowledge that the ether does not exist. The solution of the problem the scientists wanted to understand with the aether was finally resolved with Einsteins special theory of relativity.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6474
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« Reply #15 on: July 19, 2019, 06:06:10 AM »
Quote
You do seem to cling on to all the 'ancient reasonings' when it comes to astronomy and all things celestial don't you Tom. While ignoring all the progress that has been made since then which has changed our interpretations and understanding of the subject.

I believe that I just mentioned an experiment, Sagnac and Wang, which directly contradicted the explanation given for the motionless earth experiments, and it was you who ignored them.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment#Wang_Experiment

Funny how we are in the position of the existence of motionless earth experiments and physcists needing to come up with ways to explain them.


These three experiments don't seem to agree with Heliocentrism:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment


This experiment was to determine if the aether exists or not. Scientists back them mostly believed that the aether exists. But with science (unlike flat earth), you just don't believe, but you have to verify your assumption experimentally. That is the Michelson-Morley_Experiment.

To the great surprise of the scientists, the experiment did not confirm the existence of the aether. The aether does not exist!

But, as scientists (unlike flat earthers), they have to adapt to the new knowledge that the ether does not exist. The solution of the problem the scientists wanted to understand with the aether was finally resolved with Einsteins special theory of relativity.

Aether was merely the background medium of space which light flowed through. It was needed for the same reason that sound needs air for propagation.

The experiment was to test the velocity of light and see how it changed due to the motion of the earth. The velocity of light did not change. The earth appeared to be motionless. So Einstein did away with the aether and came up with an alternative explanation.

Unfortunately the explanation is directly contradicted by multiple experiments which do show that the velocity of light changes when motion is involved.   :(
« Last Edit: July 19, 2019, 06:15:35 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« Reply #16 on: July 19, 2019, 06:15:18 AM »
Quote
You do seem to cling on to all the 'ancient reasonings' when it comes to astronomy and all things celestial don't you Tom. While ignoring all the progress that has been made since then which has changed our interpretations and understanding of the subject.

I believe that I just mentioned an experiment, Sagnac and Wang, which directly contradicted the explanation given for the motionless earth experiments, and it was you who ignored them.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment#Wang_Experiment


These three experiments don't seem to agree with Heliocentrism:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment


This experiment was to determine if the aether exists or not. Scientists back them mostly believed that the aether exists. But with science (unlike flat earth), you just don't believe, but you have to verify your assumption experimentally. That is the Michelson-Morley_Experiment.

To the great surprise of the scientists, the experiment did not confirm the existence of the aether. The aether does not exist!

But, as scientists (unlike flat earthers), they have to adapt to the new knowledge that the ether does not exist. The solution of the problem the scientists wanted to understand with the aether was finally resolved with Einsteins special theory of relativity.

Aether was the background medium of space which light flowed through.

Incorrect. That experiment was to determine if the aether is a background medium of space which light flows through.

The result: No, there is no aether as a background medium of space which light flows through. Light does not flow through such a background medium. That was the result of the Michelson-Morley_Experiment.

The fact that the earth moves around the sun was a well established fact at that time and a premise in the experiment itself!

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6474
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« Reply #17 on: July 19, 2019, 06:19:36 AM »
Quote
Incorrect. That experiment was to determine if the aether is a background medium of space which light flows through.

Kindly read the article. The experiment is merely measuring the velocity of light. Aether is just a medium for light like ripples in water.

Quote
Morley wrote to his father that the purpose of the experiment was “to see if light travels with the same velocity in all directions.”

Quote
https://physicsworld.com/a/michelson-morley-experiment-is-best-yet/ (Archive)

Michelson–Morley experiment is best yet

  “ Physicists in Germany have performed the most precise Michelson-Morley experiment to date, confirming that the speed of light is the same in all directions. The experiment, which involves rotating two optical cavities, is about 10 times more precise than previous experiments – and a hundred million times more precise than Michelson and Morley’s 1887 measurement. ”

The purpose is to measure the speed of light in different directions.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2019, 06:21:34 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« Reply #18 on: July 19, 2019, 06:28:40 AM »
Quote
Incorrect. That experiment was to determine if the aether is a background medium of space which light flows through.

Kindly read the article. The experiment is merely measuring the velocity of light. Aether is just a medium for light like ripples in water.

Quote
Morley wrote to his father that the purpose of the experiment was “to see if light travels with the same velocity in all directions.”


Quote
https://physicsworld.com/a/michelson-morley-experiment-is-best-yet/ (Archive)

Michelson–Morley experiment is best yet

  “ Physicists in Germany have performed the most precise Michelson-Morley experiment to date, confirming that the speed of light is the same in all directions. The experiment, which involves rotating two optical cavities, is about 10 times more precise than previous experiments – and a hundred million times more precise than Michelson and Morley’s 1887 measurement. ”

The purpose is to measure the speed of light in different directions.

Quote
Morley wrote to his father that the purpose of the experiment was “to see if light travels with the same velocity in all directions.”

Yes that is exactly true! Does the light still has the same velocity in all direction despite earth's known motion around the sun? Yes, that is correct!


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6474
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« Reply #19 on: July 19, 2019, 06:31:48 AM »
Einstein said that light was constant for all observervers, and that this explained experiments such as Michelson-Morley and Airy's Failure (Funny how there are motionless earth experiments that need to be explained). However, his explanation was directly contradicted by experiments showing that light does change velocity to different observers when motion is involved, including velocities faster than c!

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment#Wang_Experiment

Yet, despite the explanation being directly contradicted by experiment, with the admission by mainstream sources that it does contradict relativity, the RE still cling to the belief of terrestrial motion!
« Last Edit: July 19, 2019, 06:38:21 AM by Tom Bishop »