9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

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

and your clumsy satire falls flat.

9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

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.

The old ploys just don't work these days.

 

If you had a point, you would offer some evidence.  No evidence... no point.

 

However your attempts are continually clarifying the limits of your abilities.

On 10/10/2025 at 12:42 AM, rattlesnake said:

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.

Once again, you can only gnaw at the edges of the crux of the matter regarding Barbour's quote.  And that crux is clear in the phrase 'remarkably difficult'.  Everything described after that phrase is only challenging... not impossible if ingenuity, patience and the relevant skills are used... by clear implications, the actions in the rest of the sentence ARE achievable... definitely NOT impossible... which seems to be your preferred interpretation.

 

The use of the adverb 'categorically' followed by 'whether' de facto rules out certainty.

 

This reading of Barbour's quote is nonsensical.  Certainty is implied as being possible at the beginning of the provided quote... once again because of 'remarkably difficult' which definitely does not mean IMPOSSIBLE.

 

You make reading errors and misinterpretations that a high school graduate would not.

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.

Hilarious. No evidence to support a non flat earth? Observation and VERY basic physics says otherwise. Just a dumb thread all round. The flat earthers are a special breed. Mentally imbalanced. 

4 minutes ago, daveAustin said:

Hilarious. No evidence to support a non flat earth? Observation and VERY basic physics says otherwise. Just a dumb thread all round. The flat earthers are a special breed. Mentally imbalanced. 

This thread, however insane, does serve to conveniently collect together many of the logic flaws used by the loonies.

12 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

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.

If I didn't understand and agree with the copy/paste... I wouldn't use it.  I am fully prepared to discuss in detail any of the material I've posted.  Can you say the same?

 

Have you forgotten my detailed description of how stellar parallax is used to show that the earth changes position relative to the stars... or more simply described as orbiting the sun.

 

Your response was..... of course a hand wave denial with zero supporting science.

13 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

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

 

A critical flaw in your approach - don’t believe the experts - but you can’t afford to take yourself on a space mission… ergo Earth must be flat…

I wonder, If the widely accepted fact was different - & the scientific world and global majority accepted the world was flat, would you turn argue it was an oblate spheroid ? 

 

13 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

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.

 

No, it wouldn’t - it would have dipped below the horizon - so many studies with lasers highlight this perfectly.

 

 

 

13 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

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.

 

 

 

No time to reply in depth now…. But answers are obvious..  & it nothing to do with the earth being level Or flat. 

ITS SQUARE MAN SQUARE😝

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

A critical flaw in your approach - don’t believe the experts - but you can’t afford to take yourself on a space mission… ergo Earth must be flat…

I wonder, If the widely accepted fact was different - & the scientific world and global majority accepted the world was flat, would you turn argue it was an oblate spheroid ? 

 

The one certainty I have is that the heliocentric model doesn't hold and that it essentially has ideological roots. As I told still kicking yesterday, I consider myself a heliosceptic rather than a 'flat earther' per se (though the social stigma associated with this term is very interesting).

 

NASA fabricate material, as they have confirmed themselves, this has already been covered in this thread. The "Blue Marble' is, for all intents and purposes, a work of fiction.

 

"Earth must be flat": I don't believe I ever made this claim. And yes indeed, the one fail-proof approach would be to find a way to check myself. In the meantime, I can only speculate and strive to eliminate invalid notions and/or explanations, whilst acquainting myself with various people's perspectives on the issue.

13 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

The one certainty I have is that the heliocentric model doesn't hold and that it essentially has ideological roots. As I told still kicking yesterday, I consider myself a heliosceptic rather than a 'flat earther' per se (though the social stigma associated with this term is very interesting).

 

NASA fabricate material, as they have confirmed themselves, this has already been covered in this thread. The "Blue Marble' is, for all intents and purposes, a work of fiction.

 

"Earth must be flat": I don't believe I ever made this claim. And yes indeed, the one fail-proof approach would be to find a way to check myself. In the meantime, I can only speculate and strive to eliminate invalid notions and/or explanations, whilst acquainting myself with various people's perspectives on the issue.

LOL... with absolutely no background in science.... you're certain??? .... with such baseless certainty I suggest it may be more fruitful for you to pursue the lottery.

6 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

LOL... with absolutely no background in science.... you're certain??? .... with such baseless certainty I suggest it may be more fruitful for you to pursue the lottery.

 

That's the thing though, science was a means rather than a driving force in the establishment of the heliocentric paradigm. Copernicus was used by the Jesuits to enact a civilisational change following Luther's Reformation, if anything it is more of a historical and philosophical issue. The science was then adapted to fit the model.

9 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

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'.

 

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.

 

Your premise when replying to these quotes is that I have presented them as proof that Earth is flat. This is not the case and you will not find such claim in my posts. I used these quotes to illustrate my own premise, which is that there is a strong philosophical component in the heliocentric paradigm. Ellis recognises this and says it unequivocally.

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

 

The one certainty I have is that the heliocentric model doesn't hold and that it essentially has ideological roots. As I told still kicking yesterday, I consider myself a heliosceptic rather than a 'flat earther' per se (though the social stigma associated with this term is very interesting).

 

NASA fabricate material, as they have confirmed themselves, this has already been covered in this thread. The "Blue Marble' is, for all intents and purposes, a work of fiction.

 

"Earth must be flat": I don't believe I ever made this claim. And yes indeed, the one fail-proof approach would be to find a way to check myself. In the meantime, I can only speculate and strive to eliminate invalid notions and/or explanations, whilst acquainting myself with various people's perspectives on the issue.

You once stated that if you are presented with evidence you will change your opinion.

 

Here's a plethora of scientific facts and in response I expect a lot of frantic hand waving as denials.

 

The strongest evidence that the Earth revolves around the Sun comes from stellar parallax and aberration of starlight. Stellar parallax is the apparent shift in a star's position as the Earth moves in its orbit, which was first measured in the 1830s. Aberration of starlight, discovered earlier by James Bradley, is another apparent displacement of starlight caused by the Earth's motion through space. 

 

Aberration of starlight: 

This is an apparent displacement of starlight caused by the Earth's velocity in its orbit and the finite speed of light.   First discovered in 1725 by James Bradley, this phenomenon provides further direct evidence of Earth's motion around the Sun. 

 

Phases of Venus: 

In the 17th century, Galileo's telescopic observations of Venus showed it went through a full set of phases, similar to the Moon.   This could only be explained if Venus orbited closer to the Sun than the Earth, which supported a heliocentric model. 

 

Newtonian Physics: 

The orbits of planets predicted by Kepler's laws of planetary motion and explained by Newton's law of gravity are elliptical paths around the Sun. 

These mathematical models accurately predict planetary positions, providing strong evidence for a heliocentric system.

 

 

Modern Evidence: 

Contemporary evidence includes the precise calculations required for space missions to other planets and probes sent to the Sun itself, which all depend on Earth's orbit around the Sun.   Missions like NASA's Parker Solar Probe and Europe's Solar Orbiter are currently operating in orbit around the Sun, as predicted by this model. 

 

But, like most science deniers, you'll probably claim there's a humongous coverup involving many thousands of scientists, physicists, space industry workers, amateur scientists    ... all striving to hide the 'obvious' from the public.

59 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Your premise when replying to these quotes is that I have presented them as proof that Earth is flat. This is not the case and you will not find such claim in my posts. I used these quotes to illustrate my own premise, which is that there is a strong philosophical component in the heliocentric paradigm. Ellis recognises this and says it unequivocally.

I see... blinded by a different quack theory, you misinterpreted the statements by Barbour, Hawking and Ellis in support of it.    Got it!

 

I do agree with Barbour that the heliocentric theory is 'remarkably difficult' for a layperson to categorically prove as it requires significant education, expensive devices and dedication .

2 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

But, like most science deniers, you'll probably claim there's a humongous coverup involving many thousands of scientists, physicists, space industry workers, amateur scientists    ... all striving to hide the 'obvious' from the public.

 

At least five pages had elapsed since this trope was last put forward.

I have never made such a claim.

2 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

I see... blinded by a different quack theory, you misinterpreted the statements by Barbour, Hawking and Ellis in support of it.    Got it!

 

Not a quack theory but historical facts, which ChatGPTyou are welcome to refute.

 

2 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

I do agree with Barbour that the heliocentric theory is 'remarkably difficult' for a layperson to categorically prove as it requires significant education, expensive devices and dedication .

 

He did not mention laypeople. Your interpretation is noted nonetheless.

16 hours ago, rumak said:

 

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 .

 

 

 

We should have a field trip to Singapore to check out the 'high-quality' expats 

 

Actually, I went there a few years ago and was not impressed by the place, I found it very impersonal. On second thought, I will leave the Educated Expat Nobility in their enclave, which held the enviable record of being the "most vaccinated country globally" back in 2021…

@rattlesnake

I was unaware that the observation of all the phases of Venus could prove the heliocentric model is correct. 

 

Here is the proof based upon the ability to observe all the phases of Venus:

 

The observation of Venus's phases proved the heliocentric theory because they showed that Venus orbits the Sun, a fact incompatible with the geocentric model where Venus orbits the Earth. In the geocentric model, Venus was thought to remain between the Earth and Sun, which would only allow for crescent and new phases. However, Galileo Galilei's telescope revealed that Venus goes through a full range of phases, including full and gibbous, which could only happen if Venus orbited the Sun and was sometimes on the opposite side of the Sun from Earth. 

 

Geocentric model prediction: 

In the Earth-centered model, Venus would always be between the Earth and the Sun, so it would only ever be seen as a crescent or new phase.

 

Heliocentric model explanation: 

In the Sun-centered model, Venus orbits the Sun. This allows it to be on the opposite side of the Sun from Earth, where it would appear fully illuminated (full phase). It also explains the full range of phases, as the illuminated portion we see from Earth changes as it orbits.

 

Galileo's observations: 

Using his telescope, Galileo observed all the phases of Venus—from a thin crescent to a full disk—proving that the geocentric model was incorrect and providing strong evidence for the heliocentric model. 

3 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

You once stated that if you are presented with evidence you will change your opinion.

 

Here's a plethora of scientific facts and in response I expect a lot of frantic hand waving as denials.

 

The strongest evidence that the Earth revolves around the Sun comes from stellar parallax and aberration of starlight. Stellar parallax is the apparent shift in a star's position as the Earth moves in its orbit, which was first measured in the 1830s. Aberration of starlight, discovered earlier by James Bradley, is another apparent displacement of starlight caused by the Earth's motion through space. 

 

Let's stick to parallax to begin with, my dear gamb00ler.

 

To me, this is a typical example of something I mentioned before in this thread, based on excerpts of Lincoln Barnett's book The Universe and Dr. Einstein, which details how modern science interprets data to fit into pre-existing models and concepts to explain and “save” the observable phenomena, i.e. observational data is adapted to fit the desired models.

 

Stellar parallax, offered as proof of the heliocentric model as it purportedly exists, is questionable.

 

The heliocentric model posits that the Earth moves at 1,000 mph around its central axis, while circling the Sun at 67,000 mph, forming a subset which orbits in the Milky Way at 500,000 mph.

 

That’s a lot of simultaneous perpetual motion: 1,000 mph + 67,000 mph + 500,000 mph.

 

A motion never felt, seen or irrefutably proven, and which raises questions:

1. Why haven’t the constellations changed in thousands of years?
2. How does Polaris manage to always stay aligned above the North Pole?

@richard_smith237 @gamb00ler

 

Is CNN using Adobe Premiere? Footage taken at 50,000 feet. Look from the 5:00 mark.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Let's stick to parallax to begin with, my dear gamb00ler.

 

To me, this is a typical example of something I mentioned before in this thread, based on excerpts of Lincoln Barnett's book The Universe and Dr. Einstein, which details how modern science interprets data to fit into pre-existing models and concepts to explain and “save” the observable phenomena, i.e. observational data is adapted to fit the desired models.

 

Stellar parallax, offered as proof of the heliocentric model as it purportedly exists, is questionable.

 

The heliocentric model posits that the Earth moves at 1,000 mph around its central axis, while circling the Sun at 67,000 mph, forming a subset which orbits in the Milky Way at 500,000 mph.

 

That’s a lot of simultaneous perpetual motion: 1,000 mph + 67,000 mph + 500,000 mph.

 

A motion never felt, seen or irrefutably proven, and which raises questions:

1. Why haven’t the constellations changed in thousands of years?
2. How does Polaris manage to always stay aligned above the North Pole?

 

You are not this stupid - don't try and pretend to be....   

 

If on the other hand those questions are genuine, then I genuinely worry for you.

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

@richard_smith237 @gamb00ler

 

Is CNN using Adobe Premiere? Footage taken at 50,000 feet. Look from the 5:00 mark.

 

 

Are you trying to make a new point ??      

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You are not this stupid

 

Yes I am and look forward to the answer.

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Are you trying to make a new point ??      

 

Earnest question from a Thai-grade expat to a Singapore-grade one.

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Earnest question from a Thai-grade expat to a Singapore-grade one.

 

Perhaps get a Singapore grade education then....  because you approach is genuinely worrying....

 

1) Why haven’t the constellations changed in thousands of years?

Because space is obscenely huge. The stars that make up Orion or Ursa Major aren’t sitting next to each other; they’re light-years apart - thousands of trillions of kilometres. They are moving, but so slowly relative to one another that, from our pathetic human perspective, the patterns look frozen.
It’s like watching a glacier melt while you’re taking a single breath - technically it’s happening, but you’ll be long gone before you notice. Give it about 50,000 to 100,000 years and yes, your precious constellations will start to look like someone let a toddler rearrange them....  The same happens when you watch a car drive past at 50kmh, it seems fast, yet the jet flying at 600kmh in the sky at 35,000 feet appears to be travelling slowly - think of that and expand.

 

2) Why Polaris stays above the North Pole ?

Polaris isn’t performing any mystical balancing act; it just happens to sit almost perfectly on the line that extends out from Earth’s axis - the imaginary skewer we spin around on. As Earth rotates, everything else in the sky appears to spin around that axis, but Polaris stays almost fixed because it’s sitting right above the top of it.  Your question is actually proof that the earth is spherical (oblate) - in the northern hemisphere, the higher your latitude, the higher Polaris appears in the sky, until at the North Pole it’s directly overhead. Head south, and it sinks lower, eventually disappearing entirely past the equator. That observation only works if the Earth’s surface is curved.

 

As far as your video is concerned - lens / film / video footage is unreliable for reasons explained - though it can't be understood for you, you'll have to do that bit on your own... 

 

 

You are not 'this dumb' Rattlesnake - stop playing the fool...   

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

You are not 'this dumb' Rattlesnake - stop playing the fool...   

 

Contrary to what you have repeatedly claimed, I don't find this thread to be stupid at all. There already is a wealth of information in it, and lots of notions which a lot of people probably didn't know about (or forgot about) are addressed. Where people ultimately stand on the core issue is almost irrelevant.

 

'Dumb questions' are good – they allow for clarification and benefit everybody.

 

Thanks for your input and do keep it up.

32 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

As far as your video is concerned - lens / film / video footage is unreliable for reasons explained - though it can't be understood for you, you'll have to do that bit on your own... 

 

Your explanation was that said footage was unreliable when shown on so-called 'questionable' websites:

  

On 10/11/2025 at 8:52 PM, 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.

 

This video is from CNN's official channel, hence my question, which is a rational one if you look at it objectively and dispassionately.

54 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

1) Why haven’t the constellations changed in thousands of years?

Because space is obscenely huge. The stars that make up Orion or Ursa Major aren’t sitting next to each other; they’re light-years apart - thousands of trillions of kilometres. They are moving, but so slowly relative to one another that, from our pathetic human perspective, the patterns look frozen.
It’s like watching a glacier melt while you’re taking a single breath - technically it’s happening, but you’ll be long gone before you notice. Give it about 50,000 to 100,000 years and yes, your precious constellations will start to look like someone let a toddler rearrange them....  The same happens when you watch a car drive past at 50kmh, it seems fast, yet the jet flying at 600kmh in the sky at 35,000 feet appears to be travelling slowly - think of that and expand.

 

2) Why Polaris stays above the North Pole ?

Polaris isn’t performing any mystical balancing act; it just happens to sit almost perfectly on the line that extends out from Earth’s axis - the imaginary skewer we spin around on. As Earth rotates, everything else in the sky appears to spin around that axis, but Polaris stays almost fixed because it’s sitting right above the top of it.  Your question is actually proof that the earth is spherical (oblate) - in the northern hemisphere, the higher your latitude, the higher Polaris appears in the sky, until at the North Pole it’s directly overhead. Head south, and it sinks lower, eventually disappearing entirely past the equator. That observation only works if the Earth’s surface is curved.

 

This is extremely convoluted from a purely objective, non-dogmatic viewpoint. We are supposedly hurtling through the galaxy at 500,000 mph while rotating at 1,000 mph and circling the Sun at 67,000 mph. This is a chaotic construct to say the least. Yet all one needs to do is observe the sky at night and the one evident, compelling feeling one experiences is pure and unadulterated stillness.

 

Furthermore, there are several constellations which can be seen from far greater distances over the face of the Earth than should be possible if the world were rotating. For example, Ursa Major, very close to Polaris, can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude (the North Pole) all the way down to 30 degrees South latitude. For this to be possible on a spherical Earth, the Southern observers would have to be seeing through hundreds or thousands of miles of bulging Earth to the Northern sky… It does not make sense.

9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

This is a chaotic construct to say the least. Yet all one needs to do is observe the sky at night and the one evident, compelling feeling one experiences is pure and unadulterated stillness.

Summed up nicely by the phrase, 'ignorance is bliss'.

 

When you are feeling well fed, comfortable and at peace .... your body is busy doing many things you're completely unaware of, that would make you squeamish.  So what???

10 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

This is extremely convoluted from a purely objective, non-dogmatic viewpoint. We are supposedly hurtling through the galaxy at 500,000 mph while rotating at 1,000 mph and circling the Sun at 67,000 mph. This is a chaotic construct to say the least. Yet all one needs to do is observe the sky at night and the one evident, compelling feeling one experiences is pure and unadulterated stillness.

 

Furthermore, there are several constellations which can be seen from far greater distances over the face of the Earth than should be possible if the world were rotating. For example, Ursa Major, very close to Polaris, can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude (the North Pole) all the way down to 30 degrees South latitude. For this to be possible on a spherical Earth, the Southern observers would have to be seeing through hundreds or thousands of miles of bulging Earth to the Northern sky… It does not make sense.

Did you ever try to shoot a fish in the water from above the water?  At least ask someone with knowledge/experience how light is bent when passing through boundaries of differing media.

 

Every sunrise and sunset you'll also experience the light being bent by the atmosphere boundary.  You can see the sun before it is above the horizon in the morning and after it is below the horizon when it sets.

 

AI says:

Mirages are caused by atmospheric refraction of light, which occurs when there are layers of air with significantly different temperatures and densities. Ideal conditions include still air, a hot sunny day, and a surface that absorbs heat, which creates a layer of hot, less dense air near the ground that bends light rays upward. The bending of light rays makes it look as though they are reflecting off a surface, like water, leading to optical illusions

 

You have NO idea about science!  That's why I give you no credibility regarding celestial motion.  If you desire credibility, stick to your lane.