It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does the Sun Revolve Around the Earth, or does the Earth Revolve Around the Sun?

page: 11
22
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Just one straw after another is it with some of You lot huh? fine. I'll give You one. that's it. since You prioritize Stellar parallax I'll go with that but one thing first that has to be stated is that


Stellar parallax is so difficult to detect that its existence was the subject of much debate in astronomy for thousands of years.
source

that said I'm willing to bet besides short of buying the Hubble telescope and testing(or retesting I'm sure You'll say) there's no way with even a modern telescope that can be purchased, that a ordinary person can observe and test for oneself. therefore any information pertaining to said observable parallax is really just a leap of faith. since even all experts agree its very hard to detect. so why in the earth You even want this effect (Which BTW You have never personally observed) explained is counter intuitive anyway.

My point which You clearly missed is that it's very easy to to poke holes in any augment to the point they hold no water. there's problems with all the models.HUGE problems. This is what You and a lot of others fail to grasp and go on to promote theories as cold hard facts


Edit :actually heck I'm feeling generous so I'll address the imaginary Lagrangian points as well. they are a theory only held together by equations the layman can't understand .... even with a grasp of how they work can easily be given the illusion that their "truth" are concrete fact even to the trained eye. Speaking of Lagrangian points here is some more high strangeness With this device that nasa says that have parked in orbt at at L1 . The Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera

www.gazettetribune.com...

now do You honestly think by looking at that image that that is a real pic of earth lit by the sun as seen from a satellite parked 1 million kms away?

Do I have to point out even the basic things that are wrong with the picture as opposed to what we can observe on earth like for instance that even if it's day time i can still see the tide locked moon as being illuminated in real world when facing me even in broad daylight,,,,,, yet this damn CGI picture depicts the earth being lit and the "darkside" of the moon being lit with the other side as being completely black(the side that should be facing earth and should be illuminated by the sun reflecting off the earth, is not). You can see the terminator line on the moon does not even match to the scale of the earth in the background.

I'll also point out that earth shine is supposed to by greater then moon shine. this pic does NOT "reflect"(pardon the pun) this observation
edit on 14-10-2015 by SynchronousSnake because: added to post




posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum

I understand your point however something I never understood about that supposed calculation. How could he be in two cities at the same time? How did he know what time it actually was? I am just curious about that.



At around the 4:50 mark this video (which is not pro-flat earth) explains how FET gets around Erastothenes observations on a flat earth. Essentially FET think the sun is like 39 miles in diameter (could be wrong on size)

I have noticed a lot of people pop in here with questions about the FET without any knowledge of the theory itself other than "flatness" . One poster mentions time zones which FET can explain.

The following video starting at about the 0:20 mark shows the FE model and how seasons, time zones, and such would work. The original vid I could not find with a more comprehensive explanation.



I bring this up because people act as if people who would subscribe to this view have no logical reason for doing so. The logic wont make sense to someone unfamiliar with the theory. I suggest familiarizing yourself with their claims and how they counter them before completely writing something off. Someone even mentioned earlier that they do not have to understand something to know its not true which is one of the most ignorant statements I have heard here. IF that mindset was embraced you very may well be living on a supposed flat earth because no one would have considered otherwise and been taken seriously



edit on 14-10-2015 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: SynchronousSnake
a reply to: spygeek

Seriously I shouldn't even post to You as it's obvious that You are so indoctrinated You don't even see the helical model You posted is a UNPROVEN theroy. full stop.end of story.


indoctrinated? by mathematics? i can work out equations, therefore i have accepted a scientific theory uncritically?

the helical model is a direct representation of the results of the mathematics and physics, based on what we can directly observe, used to determine the movement of our solar system. I don't see the helical model as an "unproven theory" becuase it is not a theory, it is a visual model of the theory. An "unproven theory" is not a theory, it is a "hypothesis". Not knowing the difference between the scientific and the layman definitions of a "theory" appears to be tripping you up here.

by contrast, a number of videos have been posted in this thread that feature flat earth or geocentric models, that are, simply put, not based on theory. they are visual representations of a hypothesis that has no theory behind it.

instead of resorting to a dismissive ad hominem reply, show me where the math and physics has it wrong, with examples of faulty calculations and erroneous equations.


The faulty math is adressed in the questions i raised about the affects of gravity on Light in the last few pages. but nice try.


i have seen not a single equation presented by you or anyone else, that would mathematically prove a geocentric theory, or falsify the heliocentric theory. but, nice try.

You seem to be under the impression that the bending of light by gravity can account for the observation that the earth is round when it is in fact flat. it cannot. the bending of light by gravity (and the atmosphere) is responsible for things like seeing the sunrise before the sun is physically above the horizon, and is actually evidence in support of a globular earth..

The abberation of starlight was the definitive proof of the heliocentric solar system. And then there's all the spacecraft we send around the solar system which (1) successfully reach their destinations based on a heliocentric model of the solar system, (2) take photographs showing the sun at the center, and (3) take photographs showing the earth as an oblate spheroid.

are you implying that geotechnical surveyors, whose job it is to measure land with mathematical precision using lasers before the construction of buildings, are using faulty science? are you implying that what we can easily directly observe and measure is wrong? are you implying that the entire field of astrophysics is based on faulty math because from the perspective of a person standing on earth, "it looks flat"?

for a geocentric, flat earth solar system to exist, the fundamental laws of nature and physics would have be violated. therefore, the hypothesis has no scientific merit.

show me your math, do not throw pseudo-scientific babble at me and expect me to believe it.
edit on 14-10-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Pilgrum

I understand your point however something I never understood about that supposed calculation. How could he be in two cities at the same time? How did he know what time it actually was? I am just curious about that.



At around the 4:50 mark this video (which is not pro-flat earth) explains how FET gets around Erastothenes observations on a flat earth. Essentially FET think the sun is like 39 miles in diameter (could be wrong on size)

I have noticed a lot of people pop in here with questions about the FET without any knowledge of the theory itself other than "flatness" . One poster mentions time zones which FET can explain.

The following video starting at about the 0:20 mark shows the FE model and how seasons, time zones, and such would work. The original vid I could not find with a more comprehensive explanation.



I bring this up because people act as if people who would subscribe to this view have no logical reason for doing so. The logic wont make sense to someone unfamiliar with the theory. I suggest familiarizing yourself with their claims and how they counter them before completely writing something off. Someone even mentioned earlier that they do not have to understand something to know its not true which is one of the most ignorant statements I have heard here. IF that mindset was embraced you very may well be living on a supposed flat earth because no one would have considered otherwise and been taken seriously




being familiar with the hypothesis and the logic behind it, i think the reason a lot of people, myself included, reject it is because it offers no explanation or evidence to support it. the videos above do not address the fundamental questions of how did this system form? what is "underneath" or "on the bottom" of a flat earth? how does it explain or fit in with the current understanding of electromagnetism, gravity, mass, volume, oceanography or plate tectonics? what mathematical evidence is used to determine that is hypothesis is even possible?

the hypothesis is just that. a hypothesis. it is not a scientific theory. it has not been verified by scientific method. this puts it into the catergory of pseudo-science. notice how in the second video, they have taken something that does not fit with the original hypothesis (time zones and the seasons) and tried to redefine it unscientifically to fit. this is backwards. if something observed does not fit the hypothesis, the hypothesis must be changed, not the observation. you don't modify results to fit the hypothesis, that is not scientific. you modify the hypothesis to fit the results.

for this hypothesis to become an actual theory, it would need to have gone through the following steps:

1.Observe - Look at the world and find a result that seems curious.

2.Hypothesize - Come up with an explanation.

3. Predict - The most important part of a hypothesis or theory is its ability to make predictions that have yet to be observed. A theory that makes no new predictions is scientifically worthless. Predictions must be falsifiable (theoretically, new evidence can show the prediction to be false) and specific (what is predicted must not be open to interpretation after the experiment begins, or else the only thing you're testing is your ability to reinterpret your incorrect theory).

4.Test Predictions (in physical sciences this is called Experiment) - Compare the predictions with new empirical evidence (usually experimental evidence, often supported by mathematics). This step is the reason why a hypothesis or theory has to be falsifiable — if there's nothing to falsify, then the experiment is pointless because it's guaranteed to tell you nothing new. Information from the experiment can disprove the original hypothesis, which might be refined into a better one.

5.Reproduce - ensure the result is a true reflection of reality by verifying it with others.

So far, the geocentric and flat earth hypothesis has omitted all but the first two steps of the process. Therefore it is not a theory by scientific definition. It makes no testable predictions about anything. the "flat earth theory" is not a theory, it is an unsupported hypothesis.

This is the problem with all pseudoscience. Pseudoscience does observe the world, and does come up with explanations, but that is as far as it gets. Often pseudoscience promoters are unable or unwilling to follow through in testing them more thoroughly. Refining the hypotheses is often also undesirable in pseudoscience as this could lead to abandoning the central dogma of the belief, (imagine where modern technology would be if the scientists of the 20th century refused to modify the structure of the atom as new observational evidence came in?). However, because observations and explanations still form a part of pseudoscience and can be phrased in a scientific style, pseudosciences may mistakenly appear to have scientific authority and legitimacy.
edit on 14-10-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

I agree with you. I just think people come at the posters who do believe it the wrong way. For instance you cant argue gravity with a person who believes in FE because some don't believe that it even exist. They think information is controlled. They have theories regarding concepts like electromagnetism and even aether. I have seen it suggested the world is constantly thrusting upward etc which is how a lot of this is pseudoscience as you say.. My point is you have to understand someone else s view before you can attempt to change their mind.

I like to support the posters who explore the subject simply because it shows a willingness to contemplate new concepts and question what is possible. Challenging your own beliefs and understanding why you believe them is very important IMO. I considered the theory and learned about it but ultimately discarded it for a several reasons and came to a better understanding of the world.


edit on 14-10-2015 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta


Someone even mentioned earlier that they do not have to understand something to know its not true which is one of the most ignorant statements I have heard here. IF that mindset was embraced you very may well be living on a supposed flat earth because no one would have considered otherwise and been taken seriously

I don't need to swat every fly swarming your pile of... um... explanations. You're in checkmate, but you apparently don't even realize it.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: spygeek

I agree with you. I just think people come at the posters who do believe it the wrong way. For instance you cant argue gravity with a person who believes in FE because some don't believe that it even exist. They think information is controlled. They have theories regarding concepts like electromagnetism and even aether. I have seen it suggested the world is constantly thrusting upward etc which is how a lot of this is pseudoscience as you say.. My point is you have to understand someone else s view before you can attempt to change their mind.


agreed. but on the same token, they need to understand our point of view, which they most certainly do not.


I like to support the posters who explore the subject simply because it shows a willingness to contemplate new concepts and question what is possible. Challenging your own beliefs and understanding why you believe them is very important IMO. I considered the theory and learned about it but ultimately discarded it for a several reasons and came to a better understanding of the world.


while i am in full support of contemplating new ideas and questioning what is possible, i am against the proliferation of ideas that undermine legitimate study and scientific understanding. it is one thing to question what is possible, it is another to proclaim the impossible is absolute truth.. a hypothesis is not a scientific theory. to debate science, people need to educate themselves on what it is, and make a scientific arguments against what it shows. this almost never happens.

ultimately, discussions like the one in this thread are valuable, they provide an opportunity to examine people's beliefs and why they believe them, and give an understanding of how people's minds work. i do take issue however, with people believing scientific method is a belief system, and that science is a doctrine. science is the simply process of examining the world and drawing solid logical conclusions based on indisputable physical evidence. science is not something you teach or indoctrinate people to believe in, is it something you do, something you practice, it is a method of objective observation and measurement, nothing more or less.

when people try to persuade me we live in a geocentric solar system, or that we live on a flat earth, despite there being no evidence to support the hypothesis and abundant, observable, concrete physical and mathematical evidence to the contrary, it makes me feel like this sun..

edit on 14-10-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Maybe the guys flying the UFOs are from the flip side of the Earth. I would say that is just as likely as the Earth being flat.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
I bring this up because people act as if people who would subscribe to this view have no logical reason for doing so. The logic wont make sense to someone unfamiliar with the theory.
Watching that video only convinces me more than ever that there's no logic in this model and further anybody who watches this video who doesn't immediately reject it suffers from significant cognitive deficiency. Specifically, a shadow is shown in the video where there's no reason for a shadow to appear if the Earth is flat:


Nothing shown would cause that terminator line to appear.


originally posted by: SynchronousSnake
www.gazettetribune.com...

now do You honestly think by looking at that image that that is a real pic of earth lit by the sun as seen from a satellite parked 1 million kms away?

Do I have to point out even the basic things that are wrong with the picture as opposed to what we can observe on earth like for instance that even if it's day time i can still see the tide locked moon as being illuminated in real world when facing me even in broad daylight,,,,,, yet this damn CGI picture depicts the earth being lit and the "darkside" of the moon being lit with the other side as being completely black(the side that should be facing earth and should be illuminated by the sun reflecting off the earth, is not). You can see the terminator line on the moon does not even match to the scale of the earth in the background.

I'll also point out that earth shine is supposed to by greater then moon shine. this pic does NOT "reflect"(pardon the pun) this observation
I don't know how you even expect to see Earth shine in that image, and I see no problems with the terminator of the moon or the scale of the Earth.I would ask how you think it should be different but it doesn't really matter, those observations and the other comments you made show cognitive difficulties on your part. If there was a problem with logic I suppose we could debate points logically but I don't think cognitive impairment can be cured by debate, and yes it's a genuine photo as far as I can tell, at least I see none of the problems you do and see no reason to reject it.

The parallax comment you cited refers to the thousands of years before 1838. This thread is about the present, but prior to 1838 you would have had a point. The reason it was so difficult to measure parallax is because the stars are much further away than most people expected. The fact is it HAS been measured since 1838 and no they didn't have the Hubble Space telescope in 1838, though the Hubble can make more precise measurements.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

as I said. the earth should be the brither of the objects, since it's the bigger object and would return the most light would and should appear to be the brighter of the two. this isn't a cognitive issue. this is simple logic. the earth is bigger / has more surface area to return light. therefore would be brighter then the moon in the pic when both are in the same frame. this is not the case with said "photo"

the termination lines on both objects don't match to the source of light on closer inspection. the moons line is pronounced and easily seen while the earths is not nor in the same position that it should be falling at compared to the moon for what little of it can be seen..

For that be comment invalid The ordinary man would need the equipment to conduct the parallax measurements oneself. so the statement as it is very hard to detect is still valid to the every day man. Can You or I do a test to detect this? No. we can not. so other then being reassured that after 1000's of years of debate" oh.. don't worry.. the big shots got the data. it conforms to such and such." name one experiment that anyone can do to easily end such a debate themselves?



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   
It seems to me that if the Sun revolved around the Earth that the trajectory calculations for space exploration would have been wrong and none of our craft would have reached their destination. The timing of launch, the calcs for trajectory and time to destination would be entirely different based on the position of the Sun (assumed revolving around the Earth) relative to the Earth at launch time. The launch data for various missions is available. Perhaps one of the proponents of the sun revolving around the Earth can explain why the calculations for space missions work when a key component of the calculations is based on the position of the Sun relative to the Earth and the other planets.


Hohmann Transfer Orbits

To launch a spacecraft from Earth to an outer planet such as Mars using the least propellant possible, first consider that the spacecraft is already in solar orbit as it sits on the launch pad. This existing solar orbit must be adjusted to cause it to take the spacecraft to Mars: The desired orbit's perihelion (closest approach to the sun) will be at the distance of Earth's orbit, and the aphelion (farthest distance from the sun) will be at the distance of Mars' orbit. This is called a Hohmann Transfer orbit. The portion of the solar orbit that takes the spacecraft from Earth to Mars is called its trajectory.
From the previous chapter, we know that the task is to increase the apoapsis (aphelion) of the spacecraft's present solar orbit.

A spacecraft's apoapsis altitude can be raised by increasing the spacecraft's energy at periapsis.

Well, the spacecraft is already at periapsis. So the spacecraft lifts off the launch pad, rises above Earth's atmosphere, and uses its rocket to accelerate in the direction of Earth's revolution around the sun to the extent that the energy added here at periapsis (perihelion) will cause its new orbit to have an aphelion equal to Mars' orbit. The acceleration is tangential to the existing orbit. How much energy to add? See the Rocket & Space Technology website.


solarsystem.nasa.gov...








edit on 14-10-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: SynchronousSnake
a reply to: Arbitrageur
For that be comment invalid The ordinary man would need the equipment to conduct the parallax measurements oneself. so the statement as it is very hard to detect is still valid to the every day man. Can You or I do a test to detect this? No. we can not. so other then being reassured that after 1000's of years of debate" oh.. don't worry.. the big shots got the data. it conforms to such and such." name one experiment that anyone can do to easily end such a debate themselves?



thousands of years of "big shots have the data"? we have the data. it is all freely available to us. we can easily collect and analyse the data ourselves. if you want to review the data, go ahead.

if you find the math wrong, show us where it is wrong.

You can easily end such a debate by grabbing a decent telescope and locating the planet Mars. Now, plot the path Mars follows in the night sky. Observe and recognise the "sometimes retrograde" motion of the planet. Produce a mathematical model of both Earth and Mars moving around the sun, using this plotted path relative to Earth for reference. See how that with Earth moving faster than Mars, as both orbit the sun, it easily describes the occasionally retrograde motion of Mars. There you have it. A simple experiment anyone can do easily, provided they have a basic handle on physics and mathematics, and access to a telescope.

how would an alternative geocentric or flat earth theory account for or describe the following observable phenomenon?


side note: i wish to apologise for a mistake i made in a reply on the previous page, linking a video that shows a helical solar system model moving through the galaxy. the video i linked is not the one i meant to link. Even though if you look at our solar system from point that's not moving relative to the galactic center, you do see a helical "vortex-like" movement, the video shows the planets being dragged in the sun's wake, never moving in front of it, when in fact they are orbiting the sun and pass "in front" of it regularly. if i can track down the video i actually wanted to link, i'll throw it up.
edit on 14-10-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: SynchronousSnake
as I said. the earth should be the brither of the objects, since it's the bigger object and would return the most light would and should appear to be the brighter of the two. this isn't a cognitive issue. this is simple logic. the earth is bigger / has more surface area to return light. therefore would be brighter then the moon in the pic when both are in the same frame. this is not the case with said "photo"
There's a lot to consider. You're looking at mostly ocean and the albedo of the ocean is something like 8%. The moon has an average albedo of something like 12% so it should be brighter than the ocean, and it is. Many of the land masses are either cropped out of the picture or at the extreme edges where they aren't reflecting sunlight directly. Add to that a couple more factors. The far side of the moon is significantly more reflective than the near side of the moon as seen in this Clementine survey:

www.lpi.usra.edu...


And last but not least you've got the inverse square law at work since the moon is closer to the camera, so really it all makes sense. If there were more land masses visible in the picture and if there wasn't so much of the Earth cropped out the Earth would appear significantly brighter than it does in that image.


the termination lines on both objects don't match to the source of light on closer inspection. the moons line is pronounced and easily seen while the earths is not nor in the same position that it should be falling at compared to the moon for what little of it can be seen..
This is why I say you have cognitive issues since the termination lines are fine. A smaller sphere should have a more pronounced termination line and it does, and both match the same source.


For that be comment invalid The ordinary man would need the equipment to conduct the parallax measurements oneself. so the statement as it is very hard to detect is still valid to the every day man. Can You or I do a test to detect this? No. we can not. so other then being reassured that after 1000's of years of debate" oh.. don't worry.. the big shots got the data. it conforms to such and such." name one experiment that anyone can do to easily end such a debate themselves?
Well if it could be done in 1838 it can't be that hard, but I'll give you something easier. How do you explain retrograde motion of the planets? The ancient epicycles explanation makes no sense based on what we now know about gravity.

a reply to: Phantom423
That's a good point, one which I also touched on here, though I like that you went into more detail:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 20151014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

see the major problem here is you keep thinking I'm a proponent of any particular model and well if You can't visually see the issues with the pic and want to keep insisting there is nothing wrong it.. and further more with the models(all of them) I can't help You and all i see You using as a rebuttal is that anyone that comes with any information is you try to wrangle it into the Your old interpretation to make it fit with the OLD data and then assume anyone presenting anything automatically implies that implies trying to validate any one model over the other. The fact You just plead that there's some cognitive delay on anyone presenting or seeing anything You do not or anything different is dispicable

I will state this a final time. I don't put much faith into any model. they all have problems. I think everyone can agree on that.

Just no to 1838.. it was not easy then. it's not easy now. You can't even BUY a heliometer today. theres just no point of even thinking about You or I testing it.

retrograde motion ..I don't have a model or explanation but a simple Google search of said retrograde motion on a flat earth model will give You results of people who thought of this and shows your cognitive disconnect and neglect to due diligence to see if anyone has purposed such a explanation. do I agree with them? lol Well since you're so inclined to be so judgmental I'll let you decide

You don't really think someone on a forum is going com e up with all your answers when the status quo is relegated to sticking to the established norm.

cheers

Good luck shoehorning idea into Your world view to satisfy Your curiosity



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I know we're supposed to "deny ignorance" and all here... but are we seriously having a debate about the earth revolving around the sun???? Seriously? This is 2015 and we are seriously having this discussion?

Sigh.....



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: SynchronousSnake
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You don't really think someone on a forum is going come up with all your answers when the status quo is relegated to sticking to the established norm.


this is the biggest problem you have here, out of everything you have posted. there are plenty of people on this forum and many others who can and will quite happily answer your questions regarding the current model, or even previously accepted but now abandoned models. the "status quo" is not "regulated to sticking to the established norm", it quite often changes to a new "established norm" when contradictory information is presented. that is how the scientific method works. do you have some new or contradictory data to share? the only thing the "status quo is regulated to sticking to" is a consistent, reliable, objectively verifiable standard of aquiring, processing, evaluating, and testing data.

performing a google search of "retrograde motion on a flat earth model" does indeed return results of a lot of people who have thought of this already, however not a single one of them has presented any basis or proof for the hypothesis they are plugging. if anything shared by these people had any scientific merit, i and many many many others would be right into investigating and testing it.

is there actually, in all honesty, a "flat earth theory" to speak of? one that can be referenced and evaluated and tested and that makes predictions based on scientific method? for all my searching, i have not found one. as far as i can tell, "flat earth theory" is a number of laypeople sharing youtube videos and imaginative pseudoscience on discussion boards.

please direct to me to something i can test and validate.
edit on 15-10-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

I can say the same. Ddirect Me to the something I can easily test that proves conclusively that one idea is more valid then any other.You can't.IF any one could this topic would simply not exist at all,

I can safely say I'm not a defender of any model. nor have any of My postings reflected this. However Your posting show malice, condescending dismissal behavior to responding to observations. nobody wins when a such behavior is displayed.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: SynchronousSnake
a reply to: spygeek

I can say the same. Ddirect Me to the something I can easily test that proves conclusively that one idea is more valid then any other.You can't.IF any one could this topic would simply not exist at all,

I can safely say I'm not a defender of any model. nor have any of My postings reflected this. However Your posting show malice, condescending dismissal behavior to responding to observations. nobody wins when a such behavior is displayed.


in a reply just a few posts up i told you how you can easily prove a heliocentric solar system with nothing more than a telescope and a working knowledge of physics and mathematics....



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

yep yep. But If You don't see that it does not meet the laid out criteria of solving a debate conclusively, when I can observe with My own eyes contradictions when using that method. This does not satisfy the criteria for being a iron clad scientific fact/ model if any observation deviates from the purposed hypothesis.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 03:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: SynchronousSnake
a reply to: spygeek

yep yep. But If You don't see that it does not meet the laid out criteria of solving a debate conclusively, when I can observe with My own eyes contradictions when using that method.


If objective mathematical analysis of directly observed phenomenon is not enough to meet the criteria for settling a scientific debate, it's hard to know what does.. what criteria exactly are you imposing here?

What contradictions do you observe with your own eyes when observing a planet through a telescope, plotting its path through the night sky, and using this data to calculate a mathematical model?


This does not satisfy the criteria for being a iron clad scientific fact/ model if any observation deviates from the purposed hypothesis.


Your usage of terms like "iron clad scientific fact" are telling of your misunderstanding of scientific method. There is no such thing as an "iron clad scientific fact". For a hypothesis to become a theory, it must have accumulated enough evidence, and not be contradicted by any phyical evidence, thus it becomes considered a reasonable explanation for an observed phenomenon. If an observation does in fact contradict the base hypothesis, the hypothesis is revised, and an updated theory is formulated. This is whst happened to both the flat earth hypothesis and the geocentric hypothesis; new evidence contradicted the existing theory and revised theories replaced them.

In the absence of contradictory observed and confirmed evidence, the theory stands as mathematically sound and logically true.

Where is the contradiction? What criteria are you imposing that current mathematics, physics, astrophysics, and observation does not meet?

What has you so convinced that a heliocentric solar system is not a valid and true model of where we live?
edit on 15-10-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
22
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join