Is Earth round or flat❓

[dinsdale]

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

This is nonsensical.

 

 

Please explain why? If anything is nonsensical it's a belief in the earth being flat and it is a "belief" because there is absolutely nothing to support it that can't be debunked by science and ration thought. 

[ignis]

Where I live it is flat

 

But the earth must be round

Look at flights BKK to London Heathrow  12.47  must be going up hill ?

Flight time London Heathrow to BKK 11,25  so quicker as going down hill ?

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, ignis said:

Where I live it is flat

 

But the earth must be round

Look at flights BKK to London Heathrow  12.47  must be going up hill ?

Flight time London Heathrow to BKK 11,25  so quicker as going down hill ?

 

Short explanation warm air travels north, and the earth's rotation influence on the jet streams in higher altitude

 

 

This results in wind that moves faster than the Earth rotates. Therefore, as air moves towards the poles, it also moves from west to east relative to the surface. This is the Coriolis effect. Cross section of the Northern Hemisphere showing jet streams and tropopause elevations.

 

https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/jet-stream

[Hamus Yaigh]

That we now have ELEVEN pages and counting of astute AN members discussing whether the earth is flat suggests this whole web site has very little hope for the future.

[rattlesnake]

9 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Please explain why? If anything is nonsensical it's a belief in the earth being flat and it is a "belief" because there is absolutely nothing to support it that can't be debunked by science and ration thought. 

 

A friendly reminder of the model you believe in, visually represented below, shooting through space at 200 km per second or 720,000 km per hour.

 

Orion was observed and described by the Babylonians and ancient Egyptians, and has consistently been seen above the Equator since.

 

The rest is kindergarten-level deduction.

 

[richard_smith237]

13 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

14 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Somewhat difficult when your beliefs are irrational...  we get dragged down the rabbit hole and the Mark Twain quote springs back to minds.... "Never argue with a... "

 

So far, my beliefs have not been rationally refuted. I recall derogatory language, lots of laughing emojis and lying by omission.

 

I encourage you to write the entire Twain quote.

 

Here's the quote...    But, given your writing its clear you are not stupid, which is why I assumed you can't seriously believe this nonsense and are simply playing the roll of a trollish devils advocate in this thread... 

 

I still struggle with the idea that an intelligent person could genuinely believe the idea of a non-spherical Earth.

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

14 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

14 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Vast Distances: Stars are so far away that Earth's and the Sun's motions barely affect their apparent positions.

 

Relative Motion: Stars also move, but their shifts are tiny from our perspective over thousands of years.

 

Short Observation Time: Human history is too short to notice significant changes in constellations.

 

Local Motion: Earth's and the Sun's speeds are insignificant compared to the cosmic scale.

 

Slow Changes: Precession and star motion cause small shifts, but constellations only change noticeably over millennia or more.

 

Expand  

 

This is nonsensical.

 

 

Thats your intelligent counter argument ??...     the whole idea of a non-spherical Earth is completely non-sensical, as is every comment you have made attempting to support your flawed idea (not even a theory), which can be scientifically picked apart in an instant by anyone with basic knowledge.

 

 

Explained again for you (below), this time in greater detail... to counter your simplistic and dumbed down simplification that fails to acknowledge or understand scale. 

 

The constellations haven’t significantly changed over thousands of years despite Earth's and the Sun's incredible motions because of the vast distances between Earth and the stars.

 

 

This is why: 

 

Stellar Distances Are Immense: The stars in constellations are incredibly far away, ranging from tens to thousands of light-years. A light-year is about 5.88 trillion miles, meaning that even though Earth, the Sun, and the entire solar system are moving through space, these motions are minuscule compared to the scale of the cosmos.

 

Relative Motion: The constellations appear fixed to us because their relative positions on the celestial sphere change extremely slowly over time. This is due to the fact that the stars themselves are also moving through the galaxy, but their motion, known as proper motion, is so small from our perspective that it takes tens of thousands to millions of years to become noticeable.

 

Human Observation Timeframe: Humanity has only been observing the stars in detail for a few thousand years, a blink of an eye in cosmic terms. Over longer timescales, constellations do change shape, but these changes are imperceptible on the scale of a human lifetime or even recorded history.

 

Earth’s Movements Are Local: The Earth's rotation at ~1,000 mph and its orbit around the Sun at ~66,600 mph are local motions confined to the solar system. They don't significantly alter our line of sight to distant stars.

The Sun’s motion around the galaxy at ~450,000 mph is more significant, but the galaxy is vast, so the Sun's position relative to most stars changes only slightly over thousands of years.

 

Precession and Small Shifts: Earth’s axial precession (a slow wobble of its rotation axis) over ~26,000 years causes shifts in which stars are seen at different times of the year, but the constellations themselves remain recognisable. Minor changes in constellations have been recorded, but they are subtle and require precise measurements.

 

In summary, while Earth and the Sun are moving at high speeds, the immense distances to the starts make their apparent positions stable over the relatively short timescale of human history. Over millennia or millions of years, constellations will change, but these changes are gradual and take an extraordinary amount of time to become evident.

 

 

But.. I'll put it in very simple terms if you still struggle with the above.

 

Think of a plane in the sky:

 

Vast Distances: A high-altitude aircraft looks almost stationary because it's far away, even if it's moving fast. Similarly, stars are so far that their motion appears negligible.

 

Relative Motion: Just as two aircraft at different distances can appear to stay in the same spot relative to each other, stars move so slowly relative to us that we don’t see changes over thousands of years.

 

Short Observation Time: Watching an aircraft for a minute won’t reveal much about its journey. Similarly, a few thousand years of human observation is too short to notice major shifts in constellations.

 

Local Motion: A low-altitude aircraft appears to move fast across the sky because it’s close. Earth and the Sun’s motion are like the low aircraft, they’re significant locally but negligible relative to the stars.

 

Slow Changes: A high aircraft will seem to move slowly across the sky. Over long periods, constellations do change, but like the high plane, the changes are too gradual to notice in the short term.

 

 

[rattlesnake]

30 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Thats your intelligent counter argument ??...     the whole idea of a non-spherical Earth is completely non-sensical, as is every comment you have made attempting to support your flawed idea (not even a theory), which can be scientifically picked apart in an instant by anyone with basic knowledge.

 

 

Explained again for you (below), this time in greater detail... to counter your simplistic and dumbed down simplification that fails to acknowledge or understand scale. 

 

The constellations haven’t significantly changed over thousands of years despite Earth's and the Sun's incredible motions because of the vast distances between Earth and the stars.

 

 

This is why: 

 

Stellar Distances Are Immense: The stars in constellations are incredibly far away, ranging from tens to thousands of light-years. A light-year is about 5.88 trillion miles, meaning that even though Earth, the Sun, and the entire solar system are moving through space, these motions are minuscule compared to the scale of the cosmos.

 

Relative Motion: The constellations appear fixed to us because their relative positions on the celestial sphere change extremely slowly over time. This is due to the fact that the stars themselves are also moving through the galaxy, but their motion, known as proper motion, is so small from our perspective that it takes tens of thousands to millions of years to become noticeable.

 

Human Observation Timeframe: Humanity has only been observing the stars in detail for a few thousand years, a blink of an eye in cosmic terms. Over longer timescales, constellations do change shape, but these changes are imperceptible on the scale of a human lifetime or even recorded history.

 

Earth’s Movements Are Local: The Earth's rotation at ~1,000 mph and its orbit around the Sun at ~66,600 mph are local motions confined to the solar system. They don't significantly alter our line of sight to distant stars.

The Sun’s motion around the galaxy at ~450,000 mph is more significant, but the galaxy is vast, so the Sun's position relative to most stars changes only slightly over thousands of years.

 

Precession and Small Shifts: Earth’s axial precession (a slow wobble of its rotation axis) over ~26,000 years causes shifts in which stars are seen at different times of the year, but the constellations themselves remain recognisable. Minor changes in constellations have been recorded, but they are subtle and require precise measurements.

 

In summary, while Earth and the Sun are moving at high speeds, the immense distances to the starts make their apparent positions stable over the relatively short timescale of human history. Over millennia or millions of years, constellations will change, but these changes are gradual and take an extraordinary amount of time to become evident.

 

 

But.. I'll put it in very simple terms if you still struggle with the above.

 

Think of a plane in the sky:

 

Vast Distances: A high-altitude aircraft looks almost stationary because it's far away, even if it's moving fast. Similarly, stars are so far that their motion appears negligible.

 

Relative Motion: Just as two aircraft at different distances can appear to stay in the same spot relative to each other, stars move so slowly relative to us that we don’t see changes over thousands of years.

 

Short Observation Time: Watching an aircraft for a minute won’t reveal much about its journey. Similarly, a few thousand years of human observation is too short to notice major shifts in constellations.

 

Local Motion: A low-altitude aircraft appears to move fast across the sky because it’s close. Earth and the Sun’s motion are like the low aircraft, they’re significant locally but negligible relative to the stars.

 

Slow Changes: A high aircraft will seem to move slowly across the sky. Over long periods, constellations do change, but like the high plane, the changes are too gradual to notice in the short term.

 

 

 

Thanks.

 

As I mentioned near the beginning of this thread, ultimately, most globe proponents will always default back to this notion of "scales too vast to grasp" and the like.

 

30 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thats your intelligent counter argument ??...     the whole idea of a non-spherical Earth is completely non-sensical, as is every comment you have made attempting to support your flawed idea (not even a theory), which can be scientifically picked apart in an instant by anyone with basic knowledge.

 

This is incorrect. So far, nobody has rationally explained the footage of a level surface visible at 121,000 feet, one poster even stating that "science" says the curve should be visible at 35,000… and then defaulting to the notion that the deception would be too big to accept before moving on to another aspect of the issue, leaving this one unresolved.

 

Also, the post-Reformation historical context, which is essential to understand that the switch to heliocentrism was decided and implemented for political and ideological reasons, has consistently been laughed at and ignored, one poster even making a grossly inacurate contradiction as a result of his arrogance and ignorance (usually two sides of the same coin).

[richard_smith237]

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Thanks.

 

As I mentioned near the beginning of this thread, ultimately, most globe proponents will always default back to this notion of "scales too vast to grasp" and the like.

 

Of course...  but not because 'the scale is too vast to grasp' but because the scale is too vast to distinguish any discernible movement over such a short time span of humanity.

 

You seem to be criticising people resorting to 'fact' as a weakness - of course you are arguing that fact, but this discussion then gets as silly as arguing with someone who believes were in a digital construct.

 

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thats your intelligent counter argument ??...     the whole idea of a non-spherical Earth is completely non-sensical, as is every comment you have made attempting to support your flawed idea (not even a theory), which can be scientifically picked apart in an instant by anyone with basic knowledge.

 

This is incorrect. So far, nobody has rationally explained the footage of a level surface visible at 121,000 feet, one poster even stating that "science" says the curve should be visible at 35,000… and then defaulting to the notion that the deception would be too big to accept before moving on to another aspect of the issue, leaving this one unresolved.

 

Lens distortion is often used by flat earthers to argue against any image which shows the curvature of the earth.

Equally, so for the same reasons, accusations of lens distortion of any image which shows a level horizon at 121,000 feet can also be argued.

 

I'll show this in the the next post I make using screenshots from the 121,000 ft video.

 

Field of view is also another reason, without a wide enough field of view, the horizon can appear flat. Wider perspectives show more curvature.

 

 

This is anecdotal - however, I have a close friend who flew Concorde and saw the curvature of the Earth first hand at 60,000 feet (or thereabouts) - I trust his observations. 

 

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Also, the post-Reformation historical context, which is essential to understand that the switch to heliocentrism was decided and implemented for political and ideological reasons, has consistently been laughed at and ignored, one poster even making a grossly inacurate contradiction as a result of his arrogance and ignorance (usually two sides of the same coin).

 

The post-Reformation historical context does not demonstrate that the adoption of the heliocentric model was driven solely by political and ideological reasons. Instead, the switch to heliocentrism emerged primarily from advancements in observational astronomy, mathematics, and the scientific method. Pioneers like Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, and Johannes Kepler provided empirical evidence and mathematical models that challenged the geocentric worldview, such as the phases of Venus and the elliptical orbits of planets.

The transition to heliocentrism was fundamentally rooted in a scientific revolution rather than being a premeditated political or ideological scheme.

[richard_smith237]

1) Unless the antenna is bent - the image below shows the lens distortion flattening the horizon.

 

2) The lens distortion is such that the horizon appears slightly concave, further confirming lens distortion.

 

Using this 121,000 ft altitude video is an extremely weak attempt to try and squeeze out any validity for the flat earth idea - surely you can see the basic flaws [rattlesnake] ?

 

 

 

[dinsdale]

 

[Walker88]

On 12/27/2024 at 12:21 PM, rattlesnake said:

 

Still water doesn't curve.

I'm not sure you are aware of the nature of reality. In another post you thought you were making a valid point by saying if gravity is strong enough to hold water on the planet, how can a tiny little bird fly?

 

Well, easy. Water is made up of very tiny, very light things called molecules. I'm sure you've heard of them. Of course even those are made up of smaller atoms, which are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons, some of which are made of quarks and muons.

 

Anyway, gravity acts on individual particles, and despite gravity being a weak force, it's strong enough to attract the extremely light molecules. As I noted in an earlier post, each molecule is on a force vector aimed at the Earth's center of mass, and these force lines are not parallel. Thus, bodies of water can stay on the surface of a spherical planet. Sometimes a photon smacks into some water molecules and has enough force to break the bonds between atoms and molecules, and you get something called evaporation. Heated air, which means the air molecules are moving quickly, can also hit H2O molecules and have enough energy to break bonds and cause evaporation.

 

A tiny bird is also made up of molecules, but they are joined together by other forces of nature, so gravity cannot pull any of them away and disintegrate the bird, nor can photons or rapidly moving air molecules, unless the bird is moving through air at extreme speeds. The bird, however, has muscles that create lift, so that it can essentially make itself 'lighter than air', and fly, overcoming the weak gravitational force. Birds have a service ceiling, just as airplanes do. Once the air is too thin, their wings and efforts cannot overcome the force of gravity, and they fall back to where the air is dense enough so that controlled flight is possible. Sometimes aircraft end up going into a flat spin, and can never regain lift after exceeding their service ceiling, and gravity brings them crashing to Earth.

[rattlesnake]

4 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Of course...  but not because 'the scale is too vast to grasp' but because the scale is too vast to distinguish any discernible movement over such a short time span of humanity.

 

You seem to be criticising people resorting to 'fact' as a weakness - of course you are arguing that fact, but this discussion then gets as silly as arguing with someone who believes were in a digital construct.

 

The semantics are clever, and the “facts” decided for us. Light years, trillions of miles… Unverifiable numbers so stupendoulsy huge that the human mind can’t comprehend them… and will ultimately delegate their appreciation and interpretation to the “experts”. This treacherous (and very effective) process leads us to negate our own eyes and common sense (a constellation observable from the same spot for 3,000 years can mean only one thing).

 

4 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Lens distortion is often used by flat earthers to argue against any image which shows the curvature of the earth.

Equally, so for the same reasons, accusations of lens distortion of any image which shows a level horizon at 121,000 feet can also be argued.

 

I'll show this in the the next post I make using screenshots from the 121,000 ft video.

 

What you are pinpointing here is a normal phenomenon. Every camera lens has a degree of distortion, especially around the edges. While some specialised concave lenses can be used to straighten curvatures in photography, it is not possible to do it consistently in video. There is plenty of amateur footage showing a level plane, however one will often see slight upwards curves around the edges.

 

 

 

The same thing can be observed through airplane windows, but inverted, they are often convex and therefore it is frequent to hear passengers claim that they saw the curvature during their flight.

 

[rattlesnake]

4 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

The post-Reformation historical context does not demonstrate that the adoption of the heliocentric model was driven solely by political and ideological reasons. Instead, the switch to heliocentrism emerged primarily from advancements in observational astronomy, mathematics, and the scientific method. Pioneers like Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, and Johannes Kepler provided empirical evidence and mathematical models that challenged the geocentric worldview, such as the phases of Venus and the elliptical orbits of planets.

The transition to heliocentrism was fundamentally rooted in a scientific revolution rather than being a premeditated political or ideological scheme.

 

I can assure you there is a political and philosophical component in the so-called “science”.

 

I consider myself to be Socratic, in that I follow evidence and then I decide what makes sense.

 

French sage and physicist Pierre Duhem explained in To Save the Phenomena how modern “science” interprets data to fit into pre-existing models and concepts to explain and “save” the observable phenomena. In other words, observational data is twisted to fit the models.
When data showed that the Earth did not move, the science industry strived to “save the phenomena”. This is where Einstein came into play as the theory of relativity actually kept Copernicus’ theory alive, saving centuries of “science”.
Ref: Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein.

 

The fact is, nobody in history has ever proven that the Earth moves in space (don’t take my word for it, I have added a few relevant quotes to conclude this text).

 

From Aristarchus to Galileo, no actual proof of heliocentrism exists, only theories. And stories are told repeatedly to impose those theories as facts in the collective mind. For example, contrary to popular belief, Galileo was never actually persecuted during the 17th century for his dissemination of the heliocentric model. In fact, serious study shows he was funded by the Church, celebrated and given 2 days of public honor in Rome… His views were philosophical, not scientific, and they were used because they suited a particular endeavour at a given time.

 

Plenty of experiments were made during the 18th and 19th century, such as by François Arago, which disproved the heliocentric model, but they were memory-holed.

 

A few quotes:

 

“… nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”
Lincoln Barnett (in The Universe and Dr. Einstein, 2nd rev. edition, 1957, p. 73)

 

“Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo… it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves, and, if so, in what precise sense.”
Julian B. Barbour (in Absolute or Relative Motion, Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 226)

 

“So, which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true… One can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.”
The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, 2010, pp. 41-42

[rattlesnake]

2 hours ago, Walker88 said:

I'm not sure you are aware of the nature of reality. In another post you thought you were making a valid point by saying if gravity is strong enough to hold water on the planet, how can a tiny little bird fly?

 

Well, easy. Water is made up of very tiny, very light things called molecules. I'm sure you've heard of them. Of course even those are made up of smaller atoms, which are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons, some of which are made of quarks and muons.

 

Anyway, gravity acts on individual particles, and despite gravity being a weak force, it's strong enough to attract the extremely light molecules. As I noted in an earlier post, each molecule is on a force vector aimed at the Earth's center of mass, and these force lines are not parallel. Thus, bodies of water can stay on the surface of a spherical planet. Sometimes a photon smacks into some water molecules and has enough force to break the bonds between atoms and molecules, and you get something called evaporation. Heated air, which means the air molecules are moving quickly, can also hit H2O molecules and have enough energy to break bonds and cause evaporation.

 

A tiny bird is also made up of molecules, but they are joined together by other forces of nature, so gravity cannot pull any of them away and disintegrate the bird, nor can photons or rapidly moving air molecules, unless the bird is moving through air at extreme speeds. The bird, however, has muscles that create lift, so that it can essentially make itself 'lighter than air', and fly, overcoming the weak gravitational force. Birds have a service ceiling, just as airplanes do. Once the air is too thin, their wings and efforts cannot overcome the force of gravity, and they fall back to where the air is dense enough so that controlled flight is possible. Sometimes aircraft end up going into a flat spin, and can never regain lift after exceeding their service ceiling, and gravity brings them crashing to Earth.

 

This is a cleverly worded interpretation of phenomena to fit your desired model.

[FritsSikkink]

On 12/23/2024 at 3:57 PM, dinsdale said:

How about does god exist? Very similar in that there is no evidence to support either. A flat earth or the existence of god/gods. Absolutely ZERO evidence based on science.

There is loads of evidence the earth isn't' flat look at the pictures from the ISS and learn some math.

A school friend of mine has been in the ISS. Google Andre Kuipers.

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

I can assure you there is a political and philosophical component in the so-called “science”.

 

You think the earth is flat, your assurances are somewhat empty.

 

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

I consider myself to be Socratic, in that I follow evidence and then I decide what makes sense.

 

I would argue that you exhibit the tendencies of a contrarian science denier, perhaps even playing the role of a provocative devil's advocate. I struggle to fathom how someone capable of articulating arguments so skillfully could harbor such a profound distrust in science.

 

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

French sage and physicist Pierre Duhem explained in To Save the Phenomena how modern “science” interprets data to fit into pre-existing models and concepts to explain and “save” the observable phenomena. In other words, observational data is twisted to fit the models.
When data showed that the Earth did not move, the science industry strived to “save the phenomena”. This is where Einstein came into play as the theory of relativity actually kept Copernicus’ theory alive, saving centuries of “science”.
Ref: Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein.

 

The fact is, nobody in history has ever proven that the Earth moves in space (don’t take my word for it, I have added a few relevant quotes to conclude this text).

 

There is overwhelming scientific evidence supports the Earth's movement in space.

 

The Foucault Pendulum experiment (1851) demonstrates Earth's rotation. A freely swinging pendulum changes its plane of oscillation due to Earth's rotation, a phenomenon that cannot be explained without a rotating Earth.

 

Stellar Parallax, first measured in 1838 by Friedrich Bessel, provides clear evidence of Earth's orbit around the Sun. The apparent shift in position of nearby stars against the background of distant stars occurs only because Earth changes its position in space.

 

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

From Aristarchus to Galileo, no actual proof of heliocentrism exists, only theories. And stories are told repeatedly to impose those theories as facts in the collective mind. For example, contrary to popular belief, Galileo was never actually persecuted during the 17th century for his dissemination of the heliocentric model. In fact, serious study shows he was funded by the Church, celebrated and given 2 days of public honour in Rome… His views were philosophical, not scientific, and they were used because they suited a particular endeavour at a given time.

 

Galileo's persecution by the Church is a well-documented historical fact. While he may have been celebrated early on, his advocacy for heliocentrism led to the trial and his house arrest, as confirmed by primary historical documents from the 17th century such as....

Galileo’s Trial Documents (1633), Acts of the Holy Office (Archivio della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, Vatican). The trial records, including interrogations and verdicts, document Galileo's prosecution for his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632), which argued for heliocentrism. The Church accused Galileo of violating the 1616 decree by promoting heliocentrism as fact, not merely as a hypothesis.

The formal sentence from June 22, 1633, condemned Galileo to house arrest and required him to recant his views.

Consequently, Galileo, under threat of torture, was forced to recant his heliocentric beliefs in a formal ceremony. His oath of abjuration survives and reads: "I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies..."

 

There was also the Correspondence with Cardinal Bellarmine, a letter from Cardinal Bellarmine to Galileo (1615)

which clarified the Church’s position on heliocentrism and warned Galileo not to defend it as fact. This letter reflects the Church's initial caution toward Galileo.

 

There are records from the Inquisition, namely The Manuscript of the Deposition (1632–1633) containing testimonies from officials of the Roman Inquisition and Galileo himself . These outline the charges and evidence presented against Galileo, including his writings and the Church's interpretation of Scripture.

 

Then there is the Papal decree and enforcement; Pope Papal Bull (Urban VIII) approved the trial and supported the Inquisition's sentence against Galileo. His opposition to Galileo was partially influenced by personal and political grievances.

 

There are also additional sources, such as “Galileo’s Daughter” by Dava Sobel and “The Crime of Galileo” by Giorgio de Santillana which provide detailed accounts based on the primary documents listed above.

Additionally, The Vatican’s 1965 publication of trial documents in Documenti del Processo di Galileo makes many of these records publicly accessible.

 

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

Plenty of experiments were made during the 18th and 19th century, such as by François Arago, which disproved the heliocentric model, but they were memory-holed.

 

A few quotes:

 

“… nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”
Lincoln Barnett (in The Universe and Dr. Einstein, 2nd rev. edition, 1957, p. 73)

 

“Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo… it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves, and, if so, in what precise sense.”
Julian B. Barbour (in Absolute or Relative Motion, Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 226)

 

“So, which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true… One can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.”
The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, 2010, pp. 41-42

 

The quotes you have provided, are either taken out of context or reflect philosophical musings rather than empirical conclusions. For example, Stephen Hawking's comment in The Grand Design about models refers to the philosophical nature of frameworks, not evidence against heliocentrism. Modern physics overwhelmingly supports a heliocentric model.

 

But, to go back on your comment regarding experiments carried out in the 18th and19th and centuries: There is modern evidence beyond the classical experiments.

- Satellite technology, such as the Global Positioning System (GPS), requires precise calculations that account for Earth's rotation and orbit. These technologies are direct, practical proof of Earth's motion.

- The CMB dipole anisotropy, detected by the COBE satellite, shows Earth's motion relative to the cosmic microwave background.

 

Finally, your claim that experiments during the 18th and 19th centuries, such as those by François Arago, disproved the heliocentric model and were "memory-holed" is demonstrably false. François Arago's work focused on light's behavior, particularly its refraction, polarisation, and speed, which supported the wave theory of light and did not challenge heliocentrism. On the contrary, key experiments from that period reinforced heliocentrism such as...

- Stellar parallax, first measured by Friedrich Bessel in 1838, provided direct evidence of Earth's orbit by observing the apparent shift in nearby stars relative to the background stars.

- Similarly, the Foucault Pendulum (1851) demonstrated Earth's rotation, and stellar aberration, discovered earlier by James Bradley, confirmed Earth's motion through space.

- The Michelson-Morley experiment (1887), while initially designed to detect the "aether," supported the consistent speed of light in all directions, aligning with Earth's motion and later explained by Einstein's relativity.

 

Far from being suppressed, these experiments were widely documented and remain foundational in modern physics. Assertions of "memory-holing" are baseless.

[rattlesnake]

42 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I struggle to fathom how someone capable of articulating arguments so skillfully could harbor such a profound distrust in science.

 

I put "science" in quotation marks for a reason, "science" and science are not the same thing.

 

As for the rest, my experience of debates has led me to learn that virtually anything can be refuted, questioned, given a twist… especially in written form, so I try to keep it (relatively) short.

 

I could say lots more, give more examples, add more quotes (as you could), but you have already made your point, as I have made mine. The vast majority of those reading this thread will not change their minds either way, but I believe some nuance has been added to the discussion, which is always a good thing.

 

In my view, Stephen Hawking did not make this observation on the place of Earth in the universe for no reason, this prominent scientist said this because, ultimately, he was aware that nothing is ever set in stone. I encourage you to reflect on that and thank you for an interesting exchange.

[dinsdale]

2 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

There is loads of evidence the earth isn't' flat look at the pictures from the ISS and learn some math.

A school friend of mine has been in the ISS. Google Andre Kuipers.

As I said there is zero evidence the earth is flat as is there's zero evidence of the existence of god.

[dinsdale]

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I follow evidence

Evidence like a 24 hr. sun in Antarctica. You still haven't explained how this is possible on the Gleason map.

[rattlesnake]

31 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Evidence like a 24 hr. sun in Antarctica. You still haven't explained how this is possible on the Gleason map.

 

Yes I have, dinsdale (though at this point, although it is notable, I do not consider the Final Experiment footage as evidence per se).

 

 

[dinsdale]

35 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Yes I have, dinsdale (though at this point, although it is notable, I do not consider the Final Experiment footage as evidence per se).

 

 

Sorry. I must where you answered the question does a 24 hr sun occur in Antarctica during the summer. Maybe you could post again. Yes or No. As for your explanation as to how an Antarctic 24 hr. sun works on the Gleason map. Remember that the flat earth grifters tell you it's not possible. Well at least they used to. I'm sure they've been working on a new model since TFE was announced because they knew what the result would be. A 24 hr. sun because the earth is a rotating sphere. They know it is.

[rattlesnake]

42 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Sorry. I must where you answered the question does a 24 hr sun occur in Antarctica during the summer. Maybe you could post again. Yes or No. As for your explanation as to how an Antarctic 24 hr. sun works on the Gleason map. Remember that the flat earth grifters tell you it's not possible. Well at least they used to. I'm sure they've been working on a new model since TFE was announced because they knew what the result would be. A 24 hr. sun because the earth is a rotating sphere. They know it is.

I am open to all sources of information. Some Flat Earth sources I think are good, others not. Call them "grifters" (a somewhat overused term these days) or whatever you want, ultimately what matters to me is whether what they say is relevant or not.

 

My answer to your question yesterday was "For the purpose of this conversation, Im going to answer yes".

 

Make of that what you will.

[dinsdale]

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

I am open to all sources of information. Some Flat Earth sources I think are good, others not. Call them "grifters" (a somewhat overused term these days) or whatever you want, ultimately what matters to me is whether what they say is relevant or not.

 

My answer to your question yesterday was "For the purpose of this conversation, Im going to answer yes".

 

Make of that what you will.

If there's a 24 hr. sun in Antarctica the world must be a rotating globe. Oddly this is what science says is the case. I guess the 100's of thousands that have seen it for themselves will also say it's the case.

[0ffshore360]

13 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I am open to all sources of information. Some Flat Earth sources I think are good, others not. Call them "grifters" (a somewhat overused term these days) or whatever you want, ultimately what matters to me is whether what they say is relevant or not.

 

My answer to your question yesterday was "For the purpose of this conversation, Im going to answer yes".

 

Make of that what you will.

Perversity?

[dinsdale]

On 12/30/2024 at 5:05 AM, rattlesnake said:

 

Yes I have, dinsdale (though at this point, although it is notable, I do not consider the Final Experiment footage as evidence per se).

 

 

 

[rattlesnake]

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

 

 

Perhaps this footage is real… And if it is, that is certainly one factor to take into account. However, as I have already told you, I believe that singling out this specific phenomenon as definitive proof of the heliocentric model whilst ignoring all other insonsistencies, incoherences and concerns is not a valid approach.

 

I am adding the below text for the second time in this thread. Please bear in mind and acknowledge that there are diverging opinions on this issue within the scientific community. This is a fact. As you have already mentioned that you use facts as a basis for your analysis, I assume you will not overlook this:

 

French sage and physicist Pierre Duhem explained in To Save the Phenomena how modern “science” interprets data to fit into pre-existing models and concepts to explain and “save” the observable phenomena. In other words, observational data is twisted to fit the models.
When data showed that the Earth did not move, the science industry strived to “save the phenomena”. This is where Einstein came into play as the theory of relativity actually kept Copernicus’ theory alive, saving centuries of “science”.
Ref: Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein.