The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

We don't need to be pulled down.

--Dave

But everything is being pulled down, or do you disagree? And if so why?

 

[Clete]

It would help if you would mention a mod or admin...
[MENTION=12969]Sherman[/MENTION] [MENTION=595]Knight[/MENTION]

I've never gotten used to using the @ symbol when wanting to get someone's attention. It just never occurs to me to do it. I'll try harder. I did post something in the Ask Knight thread. I guess that's considered "old school" now.

(as is the way I do smileys I guess!)

 

[JudgeRightly]

I've never gotten used to using the @ symbol when wanting to get someone's attention. It just never occurs to me to do it. I'll try harder. I did post something in the Ask Knight thread. I guess that's considered "old school" now.

(as is the way I do smileys I guess!)

@DFT_Dave I am going to allow you to open a part II since the settings on the archive does not allow editing of the posts. If you don't want to be the OP, then the task will fall to Clete . You two talk it over before opening the new thread.
[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION]

If you guys do decide to start a new thread, post the thread link here

 

[Clete]

As I said, the aether was already understood to exist since Newton and you ignored it.

I didn't ignore it, I said you were wrong! How is telling you that you're wrong on a specific point, ignoring the point?

As I said, I've been deeply interested in these sorts of topic for my ENTIRE life, Dave. I wrote a paper in my Junior year of high school on quantum packets of time. Not a formal scientific paper with math equations and all that jazz, just an essay that discuss things like Zeno's paradox and how, if it's resolution had to do with limiting the smallest length of movement (a Plank distance) then the same would apply to time and that since speed is distance over time then speed is also quantized as would be related things like temperature. None of which has anything to do with this discussion expect to say that I've been neck deep into the issues and ideas surrounding physics for decades and I'm telling you that you are flatly wrong. The Michelson Morley experiment was about testing whether an eather existed.

The motion of the Earth around the Sun is not what was in question, that was a fundamental assumption of the experiment. It was the fact that the Earth was moving through space that caused them to set up the experiment the way they did. The idea had to do with the wave front propagate through a medium. They set one arm of their apparatus into the direction of Earth's movement and set the other at 90° to the first. They send a beam of light to the center of the apparatus and split it in two sending each beam down one of the two arms and bouncing them back again and recombining the two beams. If light was a propagating wave through a medium (i.e. the eather) then there ought to be a particular sort of interference pattern produced when they two beams of light are recombined together. It is generally accepted that they're result was negative and that the existence of an eather was therefore disproved, although there are some who dispute this for various reasons.

Now, not one syllable of that was copy/pasted from anywhere. I wrote that entirely myself off the top of my head. The point being that I know what I'm talking about.

I have quotes that say that the movement of the earth was not detected and the aether that is the medium for the transmission of light, etc., was sacrificed by heliocentrics to save heliocentrism.

You've been lied to David. The morons on whatever flat earth website you're reading are lying to you. They know that what they are telling you is false. They want for you to go out and make a fool of yourself discussing the flat earth so that when you turn to the topic of Jesus, you're credibility is shot to hell. They're tactic is working.

Mapping is problematic for flat earth, but I have not said all there is to say on the subject.

Problematic?

It's far worse than that, Dave but okay fine, do your research. What you'll find is that every two dimensional map has inherent flaws and that cannot be corrected without creating other flaws.

Go buy one of those paper road atlases that are in book form, like this one and take the pages out and see if you can put it together into one large flat paper map.

You'll find out that you can't do it. And that would be $20 well spent if you're not willing to take my word for it.

Really? Where does all your emotion come from?

--Dave

I don't like being ignored. I don't like having my time wasted and I don't like it when people that I otherwise like and respect do something stupid and then stubbornly refuse to be corrected. It's like you're trying to test my limits and to anger me and its working. Perhaps it ought not to but it does. I am trying to help you see and you're fighting every rational step. This admission that the map issue is "problematic" for the flat earth theory is the furthest I've gotten you to move since this discussion started back in December of 2016 when in any other reality the first two minutes of that video should have been sufficient to convince you that the whole idea is stupidity.

If this were some other topic, some issue that was still reasonably in question it would be different. Does Dark Matter exist? - for example or one of my current favorites on a cosmological scale is the Electric Universe Theory. I'm not at all convinced that the Electric Universe Theory is right but I don't think that the people who are convinced are stupid or crazy or lying. The proponents make arguments that are rational and that are based on real data and that don't require huge multi-layered, interlaced, multinational, multi-generational, conspiracy theories. As a result, I can discuss and debate the Electric Universe theory all day long without getting the least bit emotional. This flat-earth crap, on the other hand, is just stupidity. It's puerile, David. The level of naivete it requires for anyone to take it seriously is beneath you and I both! It was great fun when it was a mere intellectual exercise. I learned quite a lot about how we know the Earth is a sphere and how we came to know it but when it became clear to me that it wasn't merely an intellectual exercise for you, as you had directly led me to believe, a level of trust was instantly eroded away and what had been fun was turned into frustration and annoyance.

Clete

 

[Clete]

I always "Go Advanced" to check everything before I "Submit Reply".

--Dave

I typically do as well but sometimes not and even when I do, I reread the post again after I've posted it and I often find additional typos or think of better ways of saying something or will occasionally change my mind about wanting to say a particular thing and want to change or delete it. Most of my posts are edited three or four times before I'm satisfied with them or have run out of time to mess with it.


On the issue of starting a new thread...

You can do it if you like or I can if you'd rather. If I do it, my thought would be to post links to those four videos that we're currently going over and start the new thread from there. It is your thread however and so if you'd prefer to start it off some other way then I can post those videos as a response to whatever affirmative argument you want to present as an opener (assuming that they're an appropriate response to your opener, of course).

Either way is fine with me. Just let me know what you decide.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Vedic astronomy was predicting eclipses perfectly for thousands of years, they assumed the earth is flat. I also heard someone read written commentary from men at the London Royal Astronomical Society from the 1800s whereby their calculations and conclusions and observations favored flat earth. I search Google with not much luck but I'll look for the video again. Who knows what secret information the vatican has as they've been looking up more than anybody for centuries. They have locked secure records from many different interests throughout ancient history until today. It's no secret that they do.

[h=3]Vedic Astronomy[/h]

The Vedas, in old Sanskrit language, are an accumulation of knowledge, over the past 4000-7000 years. They provide fascinating social, spiritual, and naked eye astronomical observations from Indian subcontinent for their period. Many hundreds of ‘Drishtrara’s or visionary composers (Rishi’s) have contributed to Vedas over many generations of time. Though much of the material has been lost, currently four Vedas and vedangas consisting of Brahmana’s, Aranayakas, Upanishads and sutras’ are available. The great epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata are intricately woven with Vedic naked eye astronomy based calendar. Vedic culture created an astronomical secular lunar / solar calendar of 28 star based day count, six seasons, four Ayana’s (Uttara, Pitru, Deva & Dakshina) based on Equinoxes/Solstices. For nearly 150-200 years, many European and Indian Indologists have tried to understand this old body of knowledge and comment up on the material. The opinions of these writers about Vedas vary from a profound body of knowledge to trivial and some times mischievous. This web site is dedicated to studying astronomical references contained in Veda Sanskrit material. The goal is to analyze the same using modern astronomical tools to arrive at time antiquity, uniqueness and a better understanding. The list of Articles are:1. Astronomy in Vedanga Jyotishya​ For those interested in Vedic Astronomy, a very old and significant Vedic work is Vedanga Jyotishya by Lagadha from circa 1400 BC. This article provides a graphic picture of material in Vedanga Jyotishya based on work by Kuppanna Sastry​ 2. Names of Stars in the Vedas​ Humans have gazed at stars for many thousands of years. Different cultures, based on their own innovation have named visible stars and star groups by native proper names. In some cultures groups of stars in the sun-moon ecliptic plane were named as zodiacs. Many of these names have died out and are dying out due to slow tendency toward unilingual-unicultural pressures, while some other name systems just survive.​ ​ This article deals with Star names from (Bharat) India. This system, which is more than 5000 years old, is based on well-developed naked eye astronomy and moon pointer calendar system from that period. The twenty-eight daily star names and six seasons are unique to India. The birthstar of many Indians, used even today, represent the moon pointed star name at the time of birth. (Unlike Western zodiacs which are sun pointed). In this article, the origins of the twenty-eight star names and their modern astronomical identity are analyzed, illustrated and tabulated, with references to their Vedic origins. ​ 3. Comparison of Star Name Identities​ The second article compares the astronomical identity proposed in first article with those indicated by R H Allen. R H Allen’s classical work is from end of 19th century and covers star name comparisons for many cultures including Chinese, Arabian, European and ‘Hindu’. While many astronomical identities between the two works with respect to Indian stars coincide, there are some significant differences also. These differences are explored.​ ​ 4. Dating the Mahabharatha - Two eclipses in thirteen days​ ​ Mahabharata, by venerable Veda Vyasa, is an important epic from India. It is much larger than Homer’s Iliad. The traditional Indian ethos considers this to be a major historical event from a period nearly 5000-6000 years old. But like Homer’s Iliad (which is now considered historical based on evidence), doubts about Mahabharata’s historicity has been and is currently challenged by many. There are references to Mahabharata by Panini in circa 450 BC. The Mahabharata story is more than 100,000 verses in Sanskrit, in anushtap chandas prosody. It is rich with a large number of astronomical observations about planet positions, their retrograde motion, and eclipses in period approaching the Mahabharata war.​ ​ In the first article, one unique statement from Mahabharata Bhishma Parva (Chapter) that ‘Two eclipses occurred in 13 days’ prior to war is analyzed. Can a solar-lunar eclipse pair occur in 13 days? Were these seen? In this modern computer era, we can use mathematical modeling, large and refined astronomical databases, and complex astronomical computer software to accurately back project all possible eclipses over the past 5000 years. Details of such a study is presented. The article concludes that naked eye visible solar-lunar eclipse pairs can occur in a short 332 hours occasionally, which is less than 14 days (336 hours is 14 days). These eclipses would occur through the transition of sunrise or sunset. Nearly 30 pairs of such eclipse pairs that were visible in Northern India during 700 BC to 3300 BC have been identified.​ ​ 5. Atri's solar eclipse​ ​ In Rig Veda & Sankhyayana Brahmana, Atri Rishi has described a total solar eclipse that occurred three days before autumnal equinox. Is this information adequate to identify and retro date that eclipse? Famous Bal Gangadhar Tilak, in his book Orion describes unsuccessful efforts in late 1800’s to date Atri’s eclipse. This article revisits the issue of dating Atri’s solar eclipse in the present computer era with vastly superior mathematical models of heavenly body motion.​ ​

The Vedas, in old Sanskrit language, are an accumulation of knowledge, over the past 4000-7000 years. They provide fascinating social, spiritual, and naked eye astronomical observations from Indian subcontinent for their period. Many hundreds of ‘Drishtrara’s or visionary composers (Rishi’s) have contributed to Vedas over many generations of time. Though much of the material has been lost, currently four Vedas and vedangas consisting of Brahmana’s, Aranayakas, Upanishads and sutras’ are available. The great epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata are intricately woven with Vedic naked eye astronomy based calendar. Vedic culture created an astronomical secular lunar / solar calendar of 28 star based day count, six seasons, four Ayana’s (Uttara, Pitru, Deva & Dakshina) based on Equinoxes/Solstices. For nearly 150-200 years, many European and Indian Indologists have tried to understand this old body of knowledge and comment up on the material. The opinions of these writers about Vedas vary from a profound body of knowledge to trivial and some times mischievous. This web site is dedicated to studying astronomical references contained in Veda Sanskrit material. The goal is to analyze the same using modern astronomical tools to arrive at time antiquity, uniqueness and a better understanding. The list of Articles are:1. Astronomy in Vedanga Jyotishya​ For those interested in Vedic Astronomy, a very old and significant Vedic work is Vedanga Jyotishya by Lagadha from circa 1400 BC. This article provides a graphic picture of material in Vedanga Jyotishya based on work by Kuppanna Sastry​ 2. Names of Stars in the Vedas​ Humans have gazed at stars for many thousands of years. Different cultures, based on their own innovation have named visible stars and star groups by native proper names. In some cultures groups of stars in the sun-moon ecliptic plane were named as zodiacs. Many of these names have died out and are dying out due to slow tendency toward unilingual-unicultural pressures, while some other name systems just survive.​ ​ This article deals with Star names from (Bharat) India. This system, which is more than 5000 years old, is based on well-developed naked eye astronomy and moon pointer calendar system from that period. The twenty-eight daily star names and six seasons are unique to India. The birthstar of many Indians, used even today, represent the moon pointed star name at the time of birth. (Unlike Western zodiacs which are sun pointed). In this article, the origins of the twenty-eight star names and their modern astronomical identity are analyzed, illustrated and tabulated, with references to their Vedic origins. ​ 3. Comparison of Star Name Identities​ The second article compares the astronomical identity proposed in first article with those indicated by R H Allen. R H Allen’s classical work is from end of 19th century and covers star name comparisons for many cultures including Chinese, Arabian, European and ‘Hindu’. While many astronomical identities between the two works with respect to Indian stars coincide, there are some significant differences also. These differences are explored.​ ​ 4. Dating the Mahabharatha - Two eclipses in thirteen days​ ​ Mahabharata, by venerable Veda Vyasa, is an important epic from India. It is much larger than Homer’s Iliad. The traditional Indian ethos considers this to be a major historical event from a period nearly 5000-6000 years old. But like Homer’s Iliad (which is now considered historical based on evidence), doubts about Mahabharata’s historicity has been and is currently challenged by many. There are references to Mahabharata by Panini in circa 450 BC. The Mahabharata story is more than 100,000 verses in Sanskrit, in anushtap chandas prosody. It is rich with a large number of astronomical observations about planet positions, their retrograde motion, and eclipses in period approaching the Mahabharata war.​ ​ In the first article, one unique statement from Mahabharata Bhishma Parva (Chapter) that ‘Two eclipses occurred in 13 days’ prior to war is analyzed. Can a solar-lunar eclipse pair occur in 13 days? Were these seen? In this modern computer era, we can use mathematical modeling, large and refined astronomical databases, and complex astronomical computer software to accurately back project all possible eclipses over the past 5000 years. Details of such a study is presented. The article concludes that naked eye visible solar-lunar eclipse pairs can occur in a short 332 hours occasionally, which is less than 14 days (336 hours is 14 days). These eclipses would occur through the transition of sunrise or sunset. Nearly 30 pairs of such eclipse pairs that were visible in Northern India during 700 BC to 3300 BC have been identified.​ ​ 5. Atri's solar eclipse​ ​ In Rig Veda & Sankhyayana Brahmana, Atri Rishi has described a total solar eclipse that occurred three days before autumnal equinox. Is this information adequate to identify and retro date that eclipse? Famous Bal Gangadhar Tilak, in his book Orion describes unsuccessful efforts in late 1800’s to date Atri’s eclipse. This article revisits the issue of dating Atri’s solar eclipse in the present computer era with vastly superior mathematical models of heavenly body motion.​ ​

Predicting eclipses in ancient times had do to with pattern analysis and can be done with surprising accuracy but not "perfectly" as you suggest. Today, we know precisely when an eclipse will occur. With the correct data, we can predict it down to the second it will begin and end and can predict to within feet exact where the eclipse will be visible and for how long as well as to what degree of totality it will be. Precision of this kind, much closer to the "perfectly" you mention, hasn't been possible for even 200 years, never mind centuries.

In fact, predicting total solar eclipses (which is much harder than predicting lunar eclipses) could not reliably be predicted to within a month prior to the first century BC at the very earliest and more likely probably not until Ptolomy's time (2nd century AD) when a detailed understanding the varying speed of the Moon (and Earth) was understood. Whether these ancient people's understood WHY the Moon and Sun moved through the sky the way they do is not relevant. In other words, it would not have been necessary for them to understand that the Earth circles the Sun and that the Moon circles the Earth or even that the Earth was round at all, never mind a globe. All they would have needed to get that level of precision is precise observations (precise by their standards) of the position of the Sun and Moon in and across the sky.

Clete

 

[Clete]

If you guys do decide to start a new thread, post the thread link here

Will do.

 

[DFT_Dave]

@DFT_Dave I am going to allow you to open a part II since the settings on the archive does not allow editing of the posts. If you don't want to be the OP, then the task will fall to Clete . You two talk it over before opening the new thread.
[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION]

I want to keep it.

--Dave


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Clete]

I want to keep it.

--Dave


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

You want to keep what?

 

[patrick jane]

 

[patrick jane]

@DFT Dave

Let me know with a msg if you start a part 2

 

[WizardofOz]

 

[patrick jane]

 

[DFT_Dave]

You want to keep what?

I'm going to start a new thread as part 2 of this one so you all can edit your posts. I will do this tomorrow evening.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I didn't ignore it, I said you were wrong! How is telling you that you're wrong on a specific point, ignoring the point?

As I said, I've been deeply interested in these sorts of topic for my ENTIRE life, Dave. I wrote a paper in my Junior year of high school on quantum packets of time. Not a formal scientific paper with math equations and all that jazz, just an essay that discuss things like Zeno's paradox and how, if it's resolution had to do with limiting the smallest length of movement (a Plank distance) then the same would apply to time and that since speed is distance over time then speed is also quantized as would be related things like temperature. None of which has anything to do with this discussion expect to say that I've been neck deep into the issues and ideas surrounding physics for decades and I'm telling you that you are flatly wrong. The Michelson Morley experiment was about testing whether an eather existed.

The motion of the Earth around the Sun is not what was in question, that was a fundamental assumption of the experiment. It was the fact that the Earth was moving through space that caused them to set up the experiment the way they did. The idea had to do with the wave front propagate through a medium. They set one arm of their apparatus into the direction of Earth's movement and set the other at 90° to the first. They send a beam of light to the center of the apparatus and split it in two sending each beam down one of the two arms and bouncing them back again and recombining the two beams. If light was a propagating wave through a medium (i.e. the eather) then there ought to be a particular sort of interference pattern produced when they two beams of light are recombined together. It is generally accepted that they're result was negative and that the existence of an eather was therefore disproved, although there are some who dispute this for various reasons.

Now, not one syllable of that was copy/pasted from anywhere. I wrote that entirely myself off the top of my head. The point being that I know what I'm talking about.


You've been lied to David. The morons on whatever flat earth website you're reading are lying to you. They know that what they are telling you is false. They want for you to go out and make a fool of yourself discussing the flat earth so that when you turn to the topic of Jesus, you're credibility is shot to hell. They're tactic is working.


Problematic?

It's far worse than that, Dave but okay fine, do your research. What you'll find is that every two dimensional map has inherent flaws and that cannot be corrected without creating other flaws.

Go buy one of those paper road atlases that are in book form, like this one and take the pages out and see if you can put it together into one large flat paper map.

You'll find out that you can't do it. And that would be $20 well spent if you're not willing to take my word for it.


I don't like being ignored. I don't like having my time wasted and I don't like it when people that I otherwise like and respect do something stupid and then stubbornly refuse to be corrected. It's like you're trying to test my limits and to anger me and its working. Perhaps it ought not to but it does. I am trying to help you see and you're fighting every rational step. This admission that the map issue is "problematic" for the flat earth theory is the furthest I've gotten you to move since this discussion started back in December of 2016 when in any other reality the first two minutes of that video should have been sufficient to convince you that the whole idea is stupidity.

If this were some other topic, some issue that was still reasonably in question it would be different. Does Dark Matter exist? - for example or one of my current favorites on a cosmological scale is the Electric Universe Theory. I'm not at all convinced that the Electric Universe Theory is right but I don't think that the people who are convinced are stupid or crazy or lying. The proponents make arguments that are rational and that are based on real data and that don't require huge multi-layered, interlaced, multinational, multi-generational, conspiracy theories. As a result, I can discuss and debate the Electric Universe theory all day long without getting the least bit emotional. This flat-earth crap, on the other hand, is just stupidity. It's puerile, David. The level of naivete it requires for anyone to take it seriously is beneath you and I both! It was great fun when it was a mere intellectual exercise. I learned quite a lot about how we know the Earth is a sphere and how we came to know it but when it became clear to me that it wasn't merely an intellectual exercise for you, as you had directly led me to believe, a level of trust was instantly eroded away and what had been fun was turned into frustration and annoyance.

Clete

Good we have much to debate, glad you're on board.

--Dave

 

[patrick jane]

Predicting eclipses in ancient times had do to with pattern analysis and can be done with surprising accuracy but not "perfectly" as you suggest. Today, we know precisely when an eclipse will occur. With the correct data, we can predict it down to the second it will begin and end and can predict to within feet exact where the eclipse will be visible and for how long as well as to what degree of totality it will be. Precision of this kind, much closer to the "perfectly" you mention, hasn't been possible for even 200 years, never mind centuries.

In fact, predicting total solar eclipses (which is much harder than predicting lunar eclipses) could not reliably be predicted to within a month prior to the first century BC at the very earliest and more likely probably not until Ptolomy's time (2nd century AD) when a detailed understanding the varying speed of the Moon (and Earth) was understood. Whether these ancient people's understood WHY the Moon and Sun moved through the sky the way they do is not relevant. In other words, it would not have been necessary for them to understand that the Earth circles the Sun and that the Moon circles the Earth or even that the Earth was round at all, never mind a globe. All they would have needed to get that level of precision is precise observations (precise by their standards) of the position of the Sun and Moon in and across the sky.

Clete

 

[patrick jane]

[h=1]FLAT EARTH ADDICT 05 : 121,000 feet Little Piggy Cam High Altitude Balloon Flight[/h]

4 minutes

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

@FE'er

Many old maps show Jerusalem as the centre of the Earth and that agrees with Jewish Tradition but FE'er say the north pole is the centre? Surley God's favourite place should be the centre?:

 

[Clete]

[h=1]FLAT EARTH ADDICT 05 : 121,000 feet Little Piggy Cam High Altitude Balloon Flight[/h]

4 minutes

You can stop with the photos and videos of the curvature of the Earth. The only people it convinces are people who are completely ignorant of how cameras work and the effects that different lenses have on the image. With the same camera and lens I can make a flat horizon look convex or concave and I can make a rounded horizon look flat as a fritter. It depends on a number of variables like focal length, the field of view, the camera angle, etc.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Notice how flat-earthers won't respond to an argument. It should tell you something. All they do it pile on more nonsense hoping that the arguments you've made against them will be forgotten.