1 minute ago, Stiddle Mump said:

How do you know? Because you have been told by someone?

3 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

How do you know? Because you have been told by someone?

No.

 

Because I can physically verify gravity exists. I just dropped a rock out my window and it fell down. I verified that the rock falls at approximately 9.8 m/s^2, consistent with both Newton and Einstein in non relativistic frames. Now, knowing that, I can apply simple physical laws to verify that a mass of sufficient size can not remain flat and stable. It would either break up, or it would collapse into a ball. And even if you tell me my models of gravity (i.e. that it is an emergent property of curved spacetime) are incorrect, any model you come up with must still behave according to the rules which we can determine from basic observation and math.

 

So if you are going to argue the Earth is flat, you might as well argue that 2+2=5. Any sufficient mass will form into a ball or break apart. It has no other choice.

6 hours ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Not by biased ignorant morons. This is settled science for thousands of years and reconfirmed in our lifetimes. 

 

It has been the doxa since the 17th century.

Bit of a ridiculous question as it is obviously round. If it was not round then it would be daytime in every country at the same time and night all at the same time which it obviously isn't

23 minutes ago, Photoguy21 said:

Bit of a ridiculous question as it is obviously round. If it was not round then it would be daytime in every country at the same time and night all at the same time which it obviously isn't

But what if Galileo was wrong and the church was right? The sun revolves around the earth.

 

Science has to be challenged.

54 minutes ago, Photoguy21 said:

Bit of a ridiculous question as it is obviously round. If it was not round then it would be daytime in every country at the same time and night all at the same time which it obviously isn't

 

Here is a demonstration of the geocentric model:

 

 

 

43 minutes ago, Photoguy21 said:

Bit of a ridiculous question as it is obviously round. If it was not round then it would be daytime in every country at the same time and night all at the same time which it obviously isn't

Well, FE's don't see it that way. Have you looked at the their model? The Sun, well that is, their Sun, doesn't illuminate the whole FE, just portions of it at any given time. That is, the Sun acts like a 'spotlight'. It is a FE ad-hoc solution with no observational or scientific backup.

23 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

But what if Galileo was wrong and the church was right? The sun revolves around the earth.

 

Science has to be challenged.

Nothing to do with Galileo, the sun would still illuminate the entire earth at the same time. What you are suggesting is nont sciece it is stupidity.

23 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Here is a demonstration of the geocentric model:

 

 

 

For that the earth would have to be flat

1 hour ago, Photoguy21 said:

For that the earth would have to be flat

There is a bigger problem with the vraious flat Earth models, including that particular geocentric illustration. Depending on what model one looks at the Sun is claimed to be somewhere between 3000-5000 miles (4828-8047 km) above the surface and that means the Sun is a great deal smaller than the 109 Earth diameters as measured by astronomers. The first problem is that no matter where you are on the Earth (globe or flat) the Sun angular size is a little over 0.5^o. But on a FE models it would only have that angular size if the sun was directly overhead and moving away the Sun would appear progressivly smaller. This doesn't happen on the globe Earth because the Sunn is so far away that moving from one country to another hardly makes any difference. But there is a bigger problem. The current value for the amount of the Sun's energy on the Earth is about 342 Watts per square meter and as you know, the Sun's energy is important for life on Earth. On a FE it will be just as important. However, the Sun is much smaller on a FE and with an angular size of  0.5^o and 5000 miles above the diameter of the Sun would  only be about 44 mile (just over 70 km). So how is it that something so small can continuosly over many years, supply us with that much energy?

The Holy Bible has an interesting take on the earth that differs radically from science.  We live on a flat plane called the circle of the earth within a giant dome firmament surrounded by water.

 

In the book of Genesis verse 1:2, prior to God forming the earth, God hovered upon the waters, the earth being formless and empty.

 

This implies the universe is water, not the delusional concept of outerspace our schools led us to believe.

 

In Genesis verse 1:6 God decreed, let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, separating the waters from the waters.  A firmament. 

 

For most of the history of the world this was the accepted truth.There are a lot more Bible proofs available for those not too busy licking the boots of their science masters. 

 

 

12 hours ago, Mark Nothing said:

The Holy Bible has an interesting take on the earth that differs radically from science.  We live on a flat plane called the circle of the earth within a giant dome firmament surrounded by water.

 

In the book of Genesis verse 1:2, prior to God forming the earth, God hovered upon the waters, the earth being formless and empty.

 

This implies the universe is water, not the delusional concept of outerspace our schools led us to believe.

 

In Genesis verse 1:6 God decreed, let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, separating the waters from the waters.  A firmament. 

 

For most of the history of the world this was the accepted truth.There are a lot more Bible proofs available for those not too busy licking the boots of their science masters. 

 

 

Putting total trust in just one book where the stories cannot be verified by direct observation, goes a lot further than licking boots.

13 hours ago, Mark Nothing said:

The Holy Bible has an interesting take on the earth that differs radically from science.  We live on a flat plane called the circle of the earth within a giant dome firmament surrounded by water.

 

In the book of Genesis verse 1:2, prior to God forming the earth, God hovered upon the waters, the earth being formless and empty.

 

This implies the universe is water, not the delusional concept of outerspace our schools led us to believe.

 

In Genesis verse 1:6 God decreed, let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, separating the waters from the waters.  A firmament. 

 

For most of the history of the world this was the accepted truth.There are a lot more Bible proofs available for those not too busy licking the boots of their science masters. 

 

 

 

 

A bible licker.......just what we need

 

 

Gravity is density/buoyancy and electrostatics:

 

 

On 12/30/2024 at 1:36 AM, rattlesnake said:

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).

I somewhat agree but assign the simplest of all explanations to the those with only the simplest of thoughts.  Someone with creative intelligence can impute various explanations that account for that single observation.

36 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I somewhat agree but assign the simplest of all explanations to the those with only the simplest of thoughts.  Someone with creative intelligence can impute various explanations that account for that single observation.

 

Indeed and there lies the gist of the issue. 'Creative intelligence' used in the name of objective science.

 

When NASA depicts entirely fictional representations of our planet and the galaxy (as they say so themselves and all relevant references are in this thread), that's creative and it's intelligent, the 'blue marble' epitomises this.

Is it the objective reality, though? No. It's an interpretation of objective reality according to one paradigm, which numerous scientists have agreed throughout time could very well be invalid.

 

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

14 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

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)

Not true.  At least 3 methods prove the Earth is moving.  Simple geometry is all that is required to prove that the Earth has a fairly regular orbit.

19 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

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.”

You probably have taken that quote out of context.  By itself, the quote only mentions 'observations of heavens' which is a very limited and simple act.  In the case of strictly performing observations, the statement is true.  Once humans begin to interact with the universe beyond the Earth... the motion of the Earth must be accounted for and therefor that statement is not true in the expanded context.

 

28 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

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)

Did you notice Barbour only claimed it was 'remarkably difficult'?  So... that means it is actually possible, correct?  Otherwise to be precise he would have used a different adjective.  Is English not your first language?

26 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Is English not your first language?

 

I encourage you to up your game a bit, pedantry is rarely a fruitful debating approach. Also bear in mind rule number one of The Art of Patronising: flawless grammar and diction is required at all times in order to maintain a semblance of relevance. Over the past couple of days, I haven't seen you strictly abide by this principle.

24 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

56 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

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)

Not true.  At least 3 methods prove the Earth is moving.  Simple geometry is all that is required to prove that the Earth has a fairly regular orbit.

 

Would you mind giving a couple of examples?

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Would you mind giving a couple of examples?

To measure Earth's orbit using stellar parallax, astronomers observe a nearby star's apparent position against distant background stars at two points in Earth's orbit, six months apart. The resulting parallax angle, which is half the total angular shift of the star, is used with the known baseline distance (one Astronomical Unit, or 1 AU) to calculate the star's distance using trigonometry. This principle confirms the size of Earth's orbit and forms a fundamental part of the cosmic distance ladder. 

 

To find a distant star:

Astronomers use standard candles (stars with a standard intrinsic brightness) like Cepheid variables and Type 1A supernovae, whose intrinsic brightness is known, allowing distance to be inferred from their apparent brightness.

 

The entire process to determine the diameter of Earth's orbit is:

- find a distant star

- look for a closer star and calculate its distance from Earth... closer stars will have a greater variation in visual proximity to the distant star at different positions in Earth's orbit

- carefully measure the apparent distance change between the closer and distant stars at 6 month intervals and using trigonometry you can calculate our orbit's diameter.

 

I misspoke earlier... I said using geometry... instead of trigonometry

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I encourage you to up your game a bit, pedantry is rarely a fruitful debating approach. Also bear in mind rule number one of The Art of Patronising: flawless grammar and diction is required at all times in order to maintain a semblance of relevance. Over the past couple of days, I haven't seen you strictly abide by this principle.

I mention it because pretty much every native English speaker would realize that the phrase 'remarkably difficult' automatically implies that it is of course possible.  Since you were trying to provide support for the belief that it is impossible to prove the Earth is constantly moving, I thought you may have missed the implication of that phrase due to unfamiliarity with some of the nuances of English.

6 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I mention it because pretty much every native English speaker would realize that the phrase 'remarkably difficult' automatically implies that it is of course possible.  Since you were trying to provide support for the belief that it is impossible to prove the Earth is constantly moving, I thought you may have missed the implication of that phrase due to unfamiliarity with some of the nuances of English.

 

I am half English and am a native English speaker, though I grew up in France (which makes me bilingual and bicultural).

 

The way I understand Barbour's quote is that he posits one can't be categorical on this issue, that it isn't an established, incontrovertible fact that the Earth moves. Just as one can demonstrate it does, one can demonstrate it doesn't. This is also the gist of Hawking's quote as I understand it.

8 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The way I understand Barbour's quote is that he posits one can't be categorical on this issue, that it isn't an established, incontrovertible fact that the Earth moves. Just as one can demonstrate it does, one can demonstrate it doesn't. This is also the gist of Hawking's quote as I understand it.

If that is his true meaning, he failed miserably at communicating it.  I fail to see how you could extract that meaning from his words.... it's not remotely possible that was his meaning.

 

His statement was very simple and direct.  There is no room for interpretation in his wording.

I think it's a trolling thread.

Equivalent to: is 2 +2 = 4 or 5.

Good bye

14 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

This is also the gist of Hawking's quote as I understand it.

That interpretation is also very unlikely.  Hawking was very precise in his explanations.  He literally meant using only normal observation of the universe from Earth, it is impossible to determine exactly how the relative motions of objects are occurring.  Hawking didn't mention in that quote that using Newtonian physics you would be able to calculate the most likely (and simplest) understanding of celestial motions.

@rattlesnake do you think the telecom satellite companies are colluding to cover up the fact that Earth is actually flat?

 

The reason I ask is because telecom satellites often are in special orbits around the Earth.  They are apparently motionless, hovering over their assigned spot on Earth.  That type of orbit is called geo-stationary because its orbit is matched to Earth's rotation and from Earth it appears motionless.  That's very convenient for sending data to/from it to a transceiver on Earth.

 

No such orbit is possible (without artificial gravity) on a non-revolving Earth.

https://media.geeksforgeeks.org/wp-content/uploads/20230828121214/Planets-in-our-Solar-System.webp

3 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

7 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Did you notice Barbour only claimed it was 'remarkably difficult'?  So... that means it is actually possible, correct?  Otherwise to be precise he would have used a different adjective. 

If that is his true meaning, he failed miserably at communicating it.  I fail to see how you could extract that meaning from his words.... it's not remotely possible that was his meaning.

 

His statement was very simple and direct.  There is no room for interpretation in his wording.

 

Had he said "it is still remarkably difficult to demonstrate how the Earth moves", you would be correct. However, he did not say that:

 

"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."

 

1. The use of the adverb 'categorically' followed by 'whether' de facto rules out certainty. 'Whether' introduces hypothesis and possibility. Had he meant otherwise, he would have said "it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically how the Earth moves".

 

2. "… and, if so, in what precise sense": in the second part of his sentence, Barbour further says that even under the hypothetical assumption that the Earth moves, it remains equally difficult to demonstrate unequivocally how this phemonenon occurs.

 

Just take what he says at face value and balance it against my initial post, which posits that heliocentrism is just one theory, one paradigm among others and that it is far from being the obvious, prevailing explanation.

32 minutes ago, still kicking said:

https://media.geeksforgeeks.org/wp-content/uploads/20230828121214/Planets-in-our-Solar-System.webp

 

Thank you for your input, still kicking.