47 minutes ago, Hummin said:

666 replies and the earth is still round 😄 

 

sorry 656 only 

AHA!.... see the round earthers are invariably wrong!  Off by 10!

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Friendly hint: admitting I have made a point remains a possible option.

When you make a point, you'll get credit.  So far you have not presented anything close to solid.

3 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

 

You've provided plenty of evidence in this and other threads that your logic is very weak.  When detailed scientific points are discussed.... I've never seen a post from you using your own explanation that it is not true.  Almost invariable you provide a link to the post of some unknown person on Twitter.

 

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Like all narcissists, you grant yourself the right to give a thumbs up or down as you see fit, and will omit what you dislike or treat it as "nonsense" without valid refutation.

In my experience those who cannot discuss their opponent's arguments in detail don't have a good understanding of them.

 

So far you've provided no scientific foundation for a flat earth.  You've only attempted to discount my evidence of the round Earth view.  But... as I mentioned..... you have not discussed the science behind my criticism of FE theory.

 

Perhaps you can give a link to one of your posts where you discuss in your own words the scientific points raised by the round Earth supporters?  So far... .I have only seen short denials of the science discussed and then a link to a popular social media sites with a poor reputation.

 

Since mathematics and most of science are based entirely on logic... and the fact that you have not engaged in a detailed discussion of either... it is entirely reasonable to posit that your logic is weak.

@rattlesnake

I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…

People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

– George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis”, Scientific American, October 1995

 

You have perhaps not included enough context to make the above useful to the discussion of flat vs round.

 

The frame of reference of the observer is extremely relevant.  A simple example.

 

We use a solar day (24h) as measurement, but the actual measurement for 1 complete revolution (sidereal day) of the earth is 23h 56m 4s

On 10/10/2025 at 3:04 PM, rattlesnake said:

@gamb00ler

 

Flat horizon at over 100,000 feet. The official explanation is that the curvature is visible at 35,000 feet. Drop the abstract rationalisations and simply see what your eyes tell you.

 

 

 

 

Flat Horizon... hmm... 

 

This evidence below clearly shows the earth is concave !!!

 

I think anyone relying solely on imagery as “proof” that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, a flat plane, a disc, or even concave is rather missing the point - wilfully so, one suspects. No one with a functioning brain can genuinely fail to grasp that camera lenses profoundly distort perspective. The curvature (or lack thereof) seen in photos and videos is a direct consequence of lens type, focal length, and optical geometry - not the planet’s shape. A wide-angle or fisheye lens can turn straight horizons into arcs, while a telephoto lens can flatten curves entirely and of course, we all know this - so why continue to argue it ?

 

Using such images as evidence of Earth’s form is like judging reality through a funhouse mirror and insisting the reflection is the truth.

 

Until one accounts for lens dynamics, optical distortion, and atmospheric refraction, any claim based purely on “what the camera shows” is not science - it’s self-deception.

 

There’s more than enough grounded science for this entire debate to be nothing more than humorous pontification among fools - and for some of us, foolish enough to take the bait, a momentary lapse into the absurd. Yet here we are, circling the same flat-disc fantasy as though centuries of empirical evidence were somehow up for reinterpretation....  hmmm... 

 

 

 

 

On 3/16/2025 at 9:34 AM, Stiddle Mump said:

For me, this topic is somewhat a barometer. I started off thinking that the earth could be round, and then, I read @rattlesnakeand because he certainly knows his stuff, the pendulum swung; and I was 50/50. Then @richard_smith237posts. His arguments were/are very convincing and I went 60/40. in favour of a round earth. But!! The pics Rattles put up are the nuts. So I'm now 40/60.

Pictures are useless as evidence.  Unless you can provide the exact method and conditions that existed when the picture was taken..... it is very unreliable.  A picture taken with a fish eye lens should convince you that pictures are often deceptive and cannot be relied upon as scientific fact.  Have you ever been to a Fun House at a fair?

On 12/30/2024 at 3:45 AM, richard_smith237 said:

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

 

On 12/30/2024 at 4:26 AM, rattlesnake said:

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.

Richard make a long, detailed synopsis of the utter failings of the FE view to account for the numerous scientific experements proving the Round Earth postulate.... and you respond by playing dodgeball.

 

Come back when you can talk actual science not sophistry,

On 12/30/2024 at 2:10 AM, rattlesnake said:

 

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

To quote the infamous @Stiddle Mump Utter hogwash!  Someone with such strong opposing viewpoint surely has some data to bolster their opinion, right?

 

Let me guess.... your data is going to consist of a link to some random person posting on a disreputable social media site.  If so, please share with us the carefully constructed query you used to find the rarest of rare 'facts'.

One of the things that fascinates me with these so-called “conspiracy claims” - and I refuse to dignify them with the word "theory", which smuggles in a veneer of science - is the curious overlap of their adherents.

 

Those who insist the moon landings were staged, 9/11 was an inside job, or that the Earth is flat etc often share a companion belief: a deep-seated opposition to vaccines.

 

Take, for example, the usual suspects: Rattlesnake, Stiddle Mump, Red Phoenix, johng, Rumak, BritManToo, phetphet, KhunLA, dinsdale… the list reads like a rogue’s gallery of sceptics with a penchant for the dramatic. One begins to wonder: are they all American-born? Do they all agree on the staple menu of conspiracies, from chemtrails to government mind control? Perhaps - but more interesting is the pattern beneath.

 

There is, I suspect, a psychological through-line connecting flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, and conspiracy enthusiasts of every stripe: an almost pathological distrust of official sources. It is a worldview in which every authority - scientists, journalists, governments - is assumed corrupt until proven otherwise, and even then, probably still corrupt.

 

Their anti-authoritarian streak isn’t just a quirk; it distorts their perception so thoroughly that rational evidence becomes meaningless, and the balance of their outlook tips entirely toward suspicion.

 

In short, it’s less about the moon, vaccines, or the shape of the Earth, and more about an underlying reflex: disbelief, resistance, and a stubborn pride in ignoring consensus. They don’t just question authority - they reject it wholesale, turning selective skepticism into a full-blown lifestyle while claiming they are "free thinkers"...  

21 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

And you are condescending and judgemental. Your interpretation is noted.

I can see why you feel that way.  I am judgmental based upon quality of contributions.  Your contributions earn the amount respect based upon the science they DON'T contain.  Sure, you do a very good job of writing .... the type of writing suitable for a soap opera.  But.... here we're talking science not drama.  Go and try to get a job as a technical writer and take along your folio.  Let us know how that works out.  That job is great for work from home so you should be able to find openings to respond to.

29 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

In short, it’s less about the moon, vaccines, or the shape of the Earth, and more about an underlying reflex: disbelief, resistance, and a stubborn pride in ignoring consensus. They don’t just question authority - they reject it wholesale, turning selective skepticism into a full-blown lifestyle while claiming they are "free thinkers"...  

I agree 100%.

 

I often think that the deniers have a couple of unique motivations.  One factor I think that may be at play here is that they have a strong desire to feel that they are amongst a small cadre of 'insiders' that see some great 'truth' that the experts and the public have overlooked.  They get the feeling of being 'special' that they could never achieve in the other aspects of their life.  The other factor I consider is that they standout from the crowd and now get the attention they feel they deserve.  Maybe they subscribe to the theory that the only thing worse than bad press is no press at all. 

 

It definitely is a head shaker.

 

Whatever the 'logic' 😆 that is driving the behavior.... I wonder why AN attracts so many?  Or... are we trapped in a simulation populated by countless sock puppets?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_puppet_account

 

24 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Whatever the 'logic' 😆 that is driving the behavior.... I wonder why AN attracts so many?  Or... are we trapped in a simulation populated by countless sock puppets?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_puppet_account

 

Is it AN that draws them in, or Thailand itself?

 

Having spent considerable time in Singapore, and knowing expats who have lived in both Singapore and Thailand, I recall one friend quipping, “Singapore has a better quality of expat.” ....  Whether that’s snobbery or not, there’s some truth to it.

 

Singapore tends to attract higher achievers, professionals with credentials, and those with means; it filters out the retirees, those living on a shoestring or the unmoored wanderers. Thailand, by contrast, casts a far wider net.

 

And so, we encounter the full spectrum: the adventurous, the eccentric, and yes - the outright nutjobs and loonies that Thailand seems to attract. Where else can such characters gather and express themselves anonymously, free from the immediate consequences of social reality? This forum, naturally, is their perfect habitat.

 

In real life, many of these individuals would be laughed at, tolerated for a fleeting moment, and then politely ignored. Here, however, they flourish. Their voices are amplified by repetition, their absurdities enshrined in a self-reinforcing circle of like-mindedness. It’s fascinating to observe, occasionally amusing to interact with - a kind of theatre, a live-action soap opera of human quirks. Sometimes it’s pure play; sometimes it’s darkly entertaining; sometimes it’s more captivating than reading the news.

 

 

5 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

When you make a point, you'll get credit.  So far you have not presented anything close to solid.

 

I will never get credit from a sophist such as yourself.

5 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

In my experience those who cannot discuss their opponent's arguments in detail don't have a good understanding of them.

 

I haven't seen you do much else than present copy/pasted bullet points and jargon aiming to give a veneer of technical superiority to your posts.

5 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Perhaps you can give a link to one of your posts where you discuss in your own words the scientific points raised by the round Earth supporters?

 

There are plenty of points I make in this thread, just read it attentively from the beginning. The X posts I occasionally present are raw footage, as you well understand but pretend not to as you are a sophist.

 

 

2 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

I can see why you feel that way.  I am judgmental based upon quality of contributions.  Your contributions earn the amount respect based upon the science they DON'T contain.  Sure, you do a very good job of writing .... the type of writing suitable for a soap opera.  But.... here we're talking science not drama.  Go and try to get a job as a technical writer and take along your folio.  Let us know how that works out.  That job is great for work from home so you should be able to find openings to respond to.

 

Typical sophist attempt to shift the debate on a personal level.

 

You missed the subtlety of Barbour's quote, but all you managed to muster as a refutation was to claim I was not a native English speaker, then to attack my cognition skills. For the second time, up your game.

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Flat Horizon... hmm... 

 

This evidence below clearly shows the earth is concave !!!

 

I think anyone relying solely on imagery as “proof” that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, a flat plane, a disc, or even concave is rather missing the point - wilfully so, one suspects. No one with a functioning brain can genuinely fail to grasp that camera lenses profoundly distort perspective. The curvature (or lack thereof) seen in photos and videos is a direct consequence of lens type, focal length, and optical geometry - not the planet’s shape. A wide-angle or fisheye lens can turn straight horizons into arcs, while a telephoto lens can flatten curves entirely and of course, we all know this - so why continue to argue it ?

 

Using such images as evidence of Earth’s form is like judging reality through a funhouse mirror and insisting the reflection is the truth.

 

Until one accounts for lens dynamics, optical distortion, and atmospheric refraction, any claim based purely on “what the camera shows” is not science - it’s self-deception.

 

There’s more than enough grounded science for this entire debate to be nothing more than humorous pontification among fools - and for some of us, foolish enough to take the bait, a momentary lapse into the absurd. Yet here we are, circling the same flat-disc fantasy as though centuries of empirical evidence were somehow up for reinterpretation....  hmmm... 

 

 

 

 

 

Already discussed on page 11, Richard, you did not respond at the time, but may do so now if you wish to. Here is an excerpt of my reply to you last December:

 

"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."

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

One of the things that fascinates me with these so-called “conspiracy claims” - and I refuse to dignify them with the word "theory", which smuggles in a veneer of science - is the curious overlap of their adherents.

 

Those who insist the moon landings were staged, 9/11 was an inside job, or that the Earth is flat etc often share a companion belief: a deep-seated opposition to vaccines.

 

Take, for example, the usual suspects: Rattlesnake, Stiddle Mump, Red Phoenix, johng, Rumak, BritManToo, phetphet, KhunLA, dinsdale… the list reads like a rogue’s gallery of sceptics with a penchant for the dramatic. One begins to wonder: are they all American-born? Do they all agree on the staple menu of conspiracies, from chemtrails to government mind control? Perhaps - but more interesting is the pattern beneath.

 

There is, I suspect, a psychological through-line connecting flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, and conspiracy enthusiasts of every stripe: an almost pathological distrust of official sources. It is a worldview in which every authority - scientists, journalists, governments - is assumed corrupt until proven otherwise, and even then, probably still corrupt.

 

Their anti-authoritarian streak isn’t just a quirk; it distorts their perception so thoroughly that rational evidence becomes meaningless, and the balance of their outlook tips entirely toward suspicion.

 

In short, it’s less about the moon, vaccines, or the shape of the Earth, and more about an underlying reflex: disbelief, resistance, and a stubborn pride in ignoring consensus. They don’t just question authority - they reject it wholesale, turning selective skepticism into a full-blown lifestyle while claiming they are "free thinkers"...  

 

Spot on Rich, I see I'm an open book.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

the outright nutjobs and loonies that Thailand seems to attract. Where else can such characters gather and express themselves anonymously, free from the immediate consequences of social reality? This forum, naturally, is their perfect habitat.

 

In real life, many of these individuals would be laughed at, tolerated for a fleeting moment, and then politely ignored. Here, however, they flourish. Their voices are amplified by repetition, their absurdities enshrined in a self-reinforcing circle of like-mindedness. It’s fascinating to observe, occasionally amusing to interact with - a kind of theatre, a live-action soap opera of human quirks. Sometimes it’s pure play; sometimes it’s darkly entertaining; sometimes it’s more captivating than reading the news.

 

I've just literally read my biography, your astuteness is beyond astonishing.

19 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I've just literally read my biography, your astuteness is beyond astonishing.

10 or even more Americans believes the earth is flat, and maybe the the country with the biggest percentage who believes in that conspiracy 

51 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Already discussed on page 11, Richard, you did not respond at the time, but may do so now if you wish to. Here is an excerpt of my reply to you last December:

 

"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."

 

I probably ignored it back then as I couldn't be bothered going down the ridiculous rabbit hole - I keep coming back to the pigeon analogy, that I quoted on the anti-vax thread and just as a applicable here.... "Arguing with a flat earther is like playing chess with a pigeon. It knocks over the pieces, craps on the board, and struts around like it won anyway".... 

 

 

Here's my answer to your comment about lens curvature in photography vs video (and I won't get into a back and forth on this one, its just too pathetic).

 

Video uses exactly the same optical principles as photography. A video is nothing more than a rapid sequence of still images (frames), each captured with the same lens and sensor. If distortion can be corrected in a still image, it can be corrected just as easily in each frame of a video.

Modern video editing software (like DaVinci Resolve, Premiere Pro, or even basic mobile apps) allows for lens profile correction in motion footage. These tools apply mathematical models to remove barrel or pincushion distortion frame by frame, maintaining consistency across the whole video. It’s standard practice in professional cinematography, particularly with drone or GoPro footage, where wide-angle lenses exaggerate curvature.

Furthermore, many cameras record metadata about lens type and settings, enabling automated correction during post-processing or even in-camera in real time. For example, mirrorless systems from Sony, Canon, and DJI drones all apply live lens correction to video output.

So the idea that you “can’t do it consistently in video” is outdated and technically wrong. The process is both automated and reliable, and the persistent curvature seen in corrected or raw footage from high altitude isn’t a lens effect - it’s the curvature of the Earth.

 

 

…and that, I’m afraid, is the full extent of attention I’m prepared to squander on this carnival of cretinism. The sheer audacity of parading ignorance as a badge of honour is pitiful.... instead, you’ll simply have to endure my continued derision of the tragically deluded souls who, against every shred of evidence and reason, persist in believing that the Earth is anything other than an oblate spheroid, providing us with a glaring example of how natural selection sometimes takes a coffee break...

 

But as for you, Rattlesnake – I honestly struggle to believe you’re taking yourself seriously in this thread. I simply refuse to accept that someone who writes as well as you do, and so clearly has an educated background, could genuinely believe in such idiocy.

45 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I probably ignored it back then as I couldn't be bothered going down the ridiculous rabbit hole - I keep coming back to the pigeon analogy, that I quoted on the anti-vax thread and just as a applicable here.... "Arguing with a flat earther is like playing chess with a pigeon. It knocks over the pieces, craps on the board, and struts around like it won anyway".... 

 

 

Here's my answer to your comment about lens curvature in photography vs video (and I won't get into a back and forth on this one, its just too pathetic).

 

Video uses exactly the same optical principles as photography. A video is nothing more than a rapid sequence of still images (frames), each captured with the same lens and sensor. If distortion can be corrected in a still image, it can be corrected just as easily in each frame of a video.

Modern video editing software (like DaVinci Resolve, Premiere Pro, or even basic mobile apps) allows for lens profile correction in motion footage. These tools apply mathematical models to remove barrel or pincushion distortion frame by frame, maintaining consistency across the whole video. It’s standard practice in professional cinematography, particularly with drone or GoPro footage, where wide-angle lenses exaggerate curvature.

Furthermore, many cameras record metadata about lens type and settings, enabling automated correction during post-processing or even in-camera in real time. For example, mirrorless systems from Sony, Canon, and DJI drones all apply live lens correction to video output.

So the idea that you “can’t do it consistently in video” is outdated and technically wrong. The process is both automated and reliable, and the persistent curvature seen in corrected or raw footage from high altitude isn’t a lens effect - it’s the curvature of the Earth.

 

 

…and that, I’m afraid, is the full extent of attention I’m prepared to squander on this carnival of cretinism. The sheer audacity of parading ignorance as a badge of honour is pitiful.... instead, you’ll simply have to endure my continued derision of the tragically deluded souls who, against every shred of evidence and reason, persist in believing that the Earth is anything other than an oblate spheroid, providing us with a glaring example of how natural selection sometimes takes a coffee break...

 

But as for you, Rattlesnake – I honestly struggle to believe you’re taking yourself seriously in this thread. I simply refuse to accept that someone who writes as well as you do, and so clearly has an educated background, could genuinely believe in such idiocy.

 

You are correct indeed. I've just watched this video demonstration of Adobe Premiere where the guy straightens the horizon consistently on video.

 

Therefore, it appears that all the available footage showing a straight horizon can be validly challenged based on the assumption that it could be altered in this way… unless it can be proven that said alteration did not take place.

 

 

It's cube-shaped, of course... 😆 

8 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

You are correct indeed. I've just watched this video demonstration of Adobe Premiere where the guy straightens the horizon consistently on video.

 

Therefore, it appears that all the available footage showing a straight horizon can be validly challenged based on the assumption that it could be altered in this way… unless it can be proven that said alteration did not take place.

 

 

 

I don't have time to check this now, but I know there is software to check if a picture has been altered, and I can only assume such software also exists for videos.

21 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

You are correct indeed. I've just watched this video demonstration of Adobe Premiere where the guy straightens the horizon consistently on video.

 

Therefore, it appears that all the available footage showing a straight horizon can be validly challenged based on the assumption that it could be altered in this way… unless it can be proven that said alteration did not take place.

 

Yep... points made here... 

 

5 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Using such images as evidence of Earth’s form is like judging reality through a funhouse mirror and insisting the reflection is the truth.

 

5 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Pictures are useless as evidence.  Unless you can provide the exact method and conditions that existed when the picture was taken..... it is very unreliable.  A picture taken with a fish eye lens should convince you that pictures are often deceptive and cannot be relied upon as scientific fact.  Have you ever been to a Fun House at a fair?

 

By the time images from satellites or high-altitude flights reach fringe websites and dubious “truth” pages, they are often stripped of context, misrepresented, or distorted - rendering them effectively useless.

 

And yet, we don’t need photographs  - still or moving - to prove the Earth’s shape. Attempting to use them to “disprove” that our planet is an oblate spheroid reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of evidence itself.

 

The reality of Earth’s shape is supported by centuries of observation: the precise movements of stars, the way ships vanish hull-first over the horizon, circumnavigation, satellite data, and measurements of gravity - all converge to the same conclusion.

 

To deny this is to ignore an overwhelming weight of evidence and engage in pure intellectual folly. Any further argument against it is not just wrong; it is a waste of time.

 

The only think left to say is that flat-earthers are not skeptics; they are fools - willfully ignorant, intellectually bankrupt, and obstinately committed to nonsense. Their claims are not misunderstandings to be gently corrected but a testament to delusion, a parade of idiocy that deserves nothing but contempt. Engaging them is pointless; debating them is futile. They are the living embodiment of folly, and the only rational response is to ignore the sheer idiocy entirely (yet, ironically, here I am biting !! - just as I sometimes do with Stiddle and his insistance that viruses do not exist).

 

 

But lets not stop there...    because there are bigger issues to worry about such as Space being Wet.... NASA has been lying for decades: space isn’t a vacuum at all - it’s an enormous, invisible ocean. Rockets aren’t vehicles that escape gravity; they’re giant harpoons that plunge through this cosmic water, towing satellites and probes behind them. Astronauts don’t float weightlessly - they’re actually paddling through the void, using invisible oars to navigate. The stars and planets we see are just glowing markers on the water’s surface, carefully positioned to maintain the illusion of a vacuum. Every photo from space? Completely doctored to hide the truth: humanity has been swimming through a vast celestial sea all along, and every mission has been a covert aquatic expedition.

46 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

By the time images from satellites or high-altitude flights reach fringe websites and dubious “truth” pages, they are often stripped of context, misrepresented, or distorted - rendering them effectively useless.

 

The same can be said of NASA with 100% certainty, hence the need for critical, independent assessment.

 

51 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The reality of Earth’s shape is supported by centuries of observation: the precise movements of stars, the way ships vanish hull-first over the horizon

 

A ship sailing away will disappear, not because it falls below the curve but because of the vanishing point, an elementary perspective phenomenon which causes the naked eye to lose sight of distant objects. Zoom in with a telescope after the ship vanishes from sight and it will reappear.

 

By the way, I never got your take on this? You now know that I will honestly acknowledge a validly refuted point, so you are not losing your time.

 

 

 

Why is everybody calling Australia Down Under if the Earth is flat?

 

 

3 hours ago, StayinThailand2much said:

It's cube-shaped, of course... 😆 

 

Geoid?

 

 

 

6 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

the outright nutjobs and loonies that Thailand seems to attract. Where else can such characters gather and express themselves anonymously, free from the immediate consequences of social reality? This forum, naturally, is their perfect habitat.

 

In real life, many of these individuals would be laughed at, tolerated for a fleeting moment, and then politely ignored. Here, however, they flourish. Their voices are amplified by repetition, their absurdities enshrined in a self-reinforcing circle of like-mindedness. It’s fascinating to observe, occasionally amusing to interact with - a kind of theatre, a live-action soap opera of human quirks. Sometimes it’s pure play; sometimes it’s darkly entertaining; sometimes it’s more captivating than reading the news.

 

blah blah blah .     says the guy that followed the  "approved science"  and took a poisonous shot .   and made the horrible decision to let

them give it to his children. 

 

now that, to me,  represents an outright loonie .     many have taken it and later...if not sooner.... were injured .    You feelin' lucky ?    

I see you still love the ad hominem name calling .   Nutjobs tend to act like that .  repeat and repeat and repeat .   oh, yes, amplified by repitition.

 

btw:  the copied text above is from Smith..... not rattlesnake .

 

 

On 10/10/2025 at 12:52 AM, rattlesnake said:

Here is a longer excerpt of Hawking's book:

 

"It is not true that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong… the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the Sun is at rest.

So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, 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. Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the Sun is at rest.”

This quote contributes zero information relevant to the FE vs RE debate.  Science has for centuries realized that the frame of reference is crucial to the understanding of the true nature of movements.  When an observer is completely independent from any of the objects in the system being studied the determination of actual movement is no longer 'remarkably difficult'.

 

On 10/10/2025 at 12:52 AM, rattlesnake said:

"I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…

People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

– George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis”, Scientific American, October 1995

Another useless quote!  You have undoubtedly ignored the context surrounding this quote.  The frame of reference Ellis's quote is describing is from an observer enmeshed in the system they are studying.  An observer outside the 'spherically symmetrical universe' would not experience the obfuscation that comes with involvement in the system being studied.

 

Your lack of a basic understanding of observation in the world of science is glaring.