Retrograde motion of the planets?

How do FETs account for the retrograde motion of the planets?

Celestial gears and the FAQ.

Celestial gears and the FAQ.

Neither of which answer the question.

How do FETs account for the retrograde motion of the planets?

They can't.
The stupid Celestial Gears argument is merely using something unexplainable to explain something else. So it's no answer at all. There is also no evidence for celestial gears whatsoever (remember Wardogg, if you wish to dispute that statement you are not allowed to use the flatness of the earth as a proof of the existence of the gears.)

The heavens are arranged in much the way presented by Tycho Brahe before his death at the hands of Kepler.

They can't.
The stupid Celestial Gears argument is merely using something unexplainable to explain something else. So it's no answer at all. There is also no evidence for celestial gears whatsoever (remember Wardogg, if you wish to dispute that statement you are not allowed to use the flatness of the earth as a proof of the existence of the gears.)

That's kind of like saying "Prove that space photos are genuine - remember, you're not allowed to use the roundness of the Earth to prove your argument", don't you think?

The heavens are arranged in much the way presented by Tycho Brahe before his death at the hands of Kepler.

Tycho Brahe likely died of mercury poisoning, not Kepler.

The heavens are arranged in much the way presented by Tycho Brahe before his death at the hands of Kepler.

Do you mean Tycho's geo-heliocentric model that includes a round earth?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 17, 2009, 11:49:29 AM

They can't.
The stupid Celestial Gears argument is merely using something unexplainable to explain something else. So it's no answer at all. There is also no evidence for celestial gears whatsoever (remember Wardogg, if you wish to dispute that statement you are not allowed to use the flatness of the earth as a proof of the existence of the gears.)

That's kind of like saying "Prove that space photos are genuine - remember, you're not allowed to use the roundness of the Earth to prove your argument", don't you think?

No, it's to avoid people like you using arguments like "there must be a solution to the problem of why it takes a short time to get from point A to point B in the southern hemisphere because the earth is flat, therefore there has to be an answer other than the earth is round". Sound familiar? In other words, argumaents that aren't quite circular logic but which are getting that way. If celestial gears exist then the shape of the earth would not be relevant in proving their existence. It should be possible to find some sort of independent evidence rather than "they must exist because the earth IS flat and it explains the motions of the sky". That's the sort of thing I'm trying to avoid. You and Kepler are the most common proponents of this type of logic.

The heavens are arranged in much the way presented by Tycho Brahe before his death at the hands of Kepler.

And so another resident stands up and starts beating his cup against the bars.

Tycho Brahe proposed a spherical earth, but his universe was geocentric.

He didn't "die at the hands of keplar". There's some speculation that he was murdered, nothing more.

No, it's to avoid people like you using arguments like "there must be a solution to the problem of why it takes a short time to get from point A to point B in the southern hemisphere because the earth is flat, therefore there has to be an answer other than the earth is round". Sound familiar? In other words, argumaents that aren't quite circular logic but which are getting that way. If celestial gears exist then the shape of the earth would not be relevant in proving their existence. It should be possible to find some sort of independent evidence rather than "they must exist because the earth IS flat and it explains the motions of the sky". That's the sort of thing I'm trying to avoid. You and Kepler are the most common proponents of this type of logic.

But the Earth is flat, so there must be a solution.

But the Earth is flat, so there must be a solution.

Trolling is the last remaining strategy of some. Why not admit that your claim is nothing remotely similar to scientific and let all of us who do believe in science worry about this problem?

If you say you are not interested in science we will be happy to let you say anything you like. If you want to say that from a philosophical perspective you consider the Earth to be flat, every real scientist in this forum will be happy letting you say "but the Earth is flat, so there must be a solution".

But the Earth is flat, so there must be a solution.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 17, 2009, 05:59:04 PM

No, it's to avoid people like you using arguments like "there must be a solution to the problem of why it takes a short time to get from point A to point B in the southern hemisphere because the earth is flat, therefore there has to be an answer other than the earth is round". Sound familiar? In other words, argumaents that aren't quite circular logic but which are getting that way. If celestial gears exist then the shape of the earth would not be relevant in proving their existence. It should be possible to find some sort of independent evidence rather than "they must exist because the earth IS flat and it explains the motions of the sky". That's the sort of thing I'm trying to avoid. You and Kepler are the most common proponents of this type of logic.

But the Earth is flat, so there must be a solution.

In other words, you are admitting there is no evidence for celestial gears. If there were, you would present it here rather than just saying "there must be a solution".
Why does there have to be a solution anyway?  (warning: this question is a trap)

But the Earth is flat, so there must be a solution.

See above. And next time write your own post.

Trolling is the last remaining strategy of some. Why not admit that your claim is nothing remotely similar to scientific and let all of us who do believe in science worry about this problem?

If you say you are not interested in science we will be happy to let you say anything you like. If you want to say that from a philosophical perspective you consider the Earth to be flat, every real scientist in this forum will be happy letting you say "but the Earth is flat, so there must be a solution".

You seem to be under the illusion that I don't care about science - on the contrary, I care about it a great deal, which is why I would like to find out how the modern theories we use every day in an RE context can be made to work within the FE framework.  There is nothing unscientific about the way I have chosen to pursue it either, although if you wish to consider my efforts as trolling then I have no means of stopping you.

In other words, you are admitting there is no evidence for celestial gears. If there were, you would present it here rather than just saying "there must be a solution".
Why does there have to be a solution anyway?  (warning: this question is a trap)

I personally think that celestial gears are a horrible idea.  I shall also neatly sidestep the philosophical minefield you were kind enough to point out to me.

You seem to be under the illusion that I don't care about science - on the contrary, I care about it a great deal, which is why I would like to find out how the modern theories we use every day in an RE context can be made to work within the FE framework.  There is nothing unscientific about the way I have chosen to pursue it either, although if you wish to consider my efforts as trolling then I have no means of stopping you.

Using an international conspiracy to dismiss evidence that contradicts your theory is very unscientific. 

Using an international conspiracy to dismiss evidence that contradicts your theory is very unscientific. 

Dismissing a hypothesis out of hand because it seems preposterous to the indoctrinated mind is hardly a shining beacon of science either, you know.

Quote from: markjo on October 18, 2009, 08:41:38 AM

Using an international conspiracy to dismiss evidence that contradicts your theory is very unscientific. 

Dismissing a hypothesis out of hand because it seems preposterous to the indoctrinated mind is hardly a shining beacon of science either, you know.

You dismiss RET because of a conspiracy.  I dismiss FET because of a lack of falsifiable evidence.  There's a difference.

You dismiss RET because of a conspiracy.  I dismiss FET because of a lack of falsifiable evidence.  There's a difference.

No, I dismiss RET because the Earth is flat.  Haven't you been paying attention?

Quote from: markjo on October 18, 2009, 08:48:22 AM

You dismiss RET because of a conspiracy.  I dismiss FET because of a lack of falsifiable evidence.  There's a difference.

No, I dismiss RET because the Earth is flat.  Haven't you been paying attention?

Post hoc much?

Quote from: markjo on October 18, 2009, 08:48:22 AM

You dismiss RET because of a conspiracy.  I dismiss FET because of a lack of falsifiable evidence.  There's a difference.

No, I dismiss RET because the Earth is flat.  Haven't you been paying attention?

And any evidence contrary to FET is a product of the conspiracy.  Yes, I've been keeping up.  But ignoring evidence contrary to what you believe is still very unscientific.

And any evidence contrary to FET is a product of the conspiracy.  Yes, I've been keeping up.  But ignoring evidence contrary to what you believe is still very unscientific.

Only some evidence can be dismissed by means of the Conspiracy without it becoming completely implausible - for instance, the travel time anomaly, solar neutrino problem, horizon perspective and readings of g as a function of altitude are all aspects of FET that the Conpsiracy can't easily be 'invoked' to dispel, but which instead require scientifically sound theories to explain.  We are here to discuss and debate those theories - any constructive input you could offer would be greatly appreciated.

Quote from: markjo on October 18, 2009, 09:05:01 AM

And any evidence contrary to FET is a product of the conspiracy.  Yes, I've been keeping up.  But ignoring evidence contrary to what you believe is still very unscientific.

Only some evidence can be dismissed by means of the Conspiracy without it becoming completely implausible - for instance, the travel time anomaly, solar neutrino problem, horizon perspective and readings of g as a function of altitude are all aspects of FET that the Conpsiracy can't easily be 'invoked' to dispel, but which instead require scientifically sound theories to explain.  We are here to discuss and debate those theories - any constructive input you could offer would be greatly appreciated.

Would you consider astronomy to be one of those areas were the conspiracy can not be easily invoked?  Granted, most of the major observatories (including HST) are either partially or fully funded by governments, however the amateur astronomy community has also made tremendous contributions to the field as well.  It's also a way of getting us back on topic.

Would you consider astronomy to be one of those areas were the conspiracy can not be easily invoked?  Granted, most of the major observatories (including HST) are either partially or fully funded by governments, however the amateur astronomy community has also made tremendous contributions to the field as well.  It's also a way of getting us back on topic.

Yes, I would consider any photographs posted on this site by an amateur astronomer, that they obtained using their own equipment without recourse to any potentially Conspiracy-linked projects (such as HST), to require a scientific explanation.  This would most likely involve modifying 'vanilla FET' in such a way that it accounted for the observations in a consistent manner.

Quote from: Ski on October 17, 2009, 02:56:20 PM

The heavens are arranged in much the way presented by Tycho Brahe before his death at the hands of Kepler.

Do you mean Tycho's geo-heliocentric model that includes a round earth?

I do.

Matrix, I have a lot of respect for your keenness to use scientific methods for working stuff out, but you keep falling down at the same point all the time which is largely that your reason for believing the earth is flat is "because it is". You want to hold every anomaly up to scientific scrutiny, which is admirable, but your problem is you are taking the flatness as a given starting principle, rather than a conclusion drawn from observations.

Matrix, I have a lot of respect for your keenness to use scientific methods for working stuff out, but you keep falling down at the same point all the time which is largely that your reason for believing the earth is flat is "because it is". You want to hold every anomaly up to scientific scrutiny, which is admirable, but your problem is you are taking the flatness as a given starting principle, rather than a conclusion drawn from observations.

I'm glad to see you are finally catching on.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 18, 2009, 11:40:29 AM

Matrix, I have a lot of respect for your keenness to use scientific methods for working stuff out, but you keep falling down at the same point all the time which is largely that your reason for believing the earth is flat is "because it is". You want to hold every anomaly up to scientific scrutiny, which is admirable, but your problem is you are taking the flatness as a given starting principle, rather than a conclusion drawn from observations.

I'm glad to see you are finally catching on.

Its called a tendentious argument, Matrix.  Try starting from the Null Hypothesis and working forward, the way scientists do.