Why didn't these people talk about the earth being flat?

Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking. They are more credible than anyone on these forums and they never spoke of a flat Earth. Also, Newton and Einstein were both dead before NASA was formed.

Hawking, who's done nothing more than sit in a chair and change his view on whether or not there is a God every couple years so he can sell more books?

Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking. They are more credible than anyone on these forums and they never spoke of a flat Earth. Also, Newton and Einstein were both dead before NASA was formed.

First off, that would be appealing to authority.
Second, if they were not presented with the arguments of FET, they cannot be said to have been against it.

Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking. They are more credible than anyone on these forums and they never spoke of a flat Earth. Also, Newton and Einstein were both dead before NASA was formed.

Einstein proved relativity by calculating Mercury's orbit around the sun.

Quote from: miscquito on September 17, 2010, 05:35:40 PM

Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking. They are more credible than anyone on these forums and they never spoke of a flat Earth. Also, Newton and Einstein were both dead before NASA was formed.

Einstein proved relativity by calculating Mercury's orbit around the sun.

And modern physics is only now realizing that he was wrong about relativity all along.

Hawking, who's done nothing more than sit in a chair and change his view on whether or not there is a God every couple years so he can sell more books?

He has done quite a bit more than that, if you ever bothered to actually read his bio instead of flinging names.

Quote from: Maxine on September 17, 2010, 06:44:30 PM

Quote from: miscquito on September 17, 2010, 05:35:40 PM

Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking. They are more credible than anyone on these forums and they never spoke of a flat Earth. Also, Newton and Einstein were both dead before NASA was formed.

Einstein proved relativity by calculating Mercury's orbit around the sun.

And modern physics is only now realizing that he was wrong about relativity all along.

Quantum Physicists may be challenging relativity, but that's neither here nor there as far as this thread goes. Einstein knew our solar system to be heliocentric. Are there *any* heliocentric flat earth models?  Seems very shaky territory.

Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking. They are more credible than anyone on these forums and they never spoke of a flat Earth. Also, Newton and Einstein were both dead before NASA was formed.

None of those people studied the shape of the earth.

That's like expecting us to believe that you're an expert in ancient languages because you scored high on your GED.

Quote from: miscquito on September 17, 2010, 05:35:40 PM

Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking. They are more credible than anyone on these forums and they never spoke of a flat Earth. Also, Newton and Einstein were both dead before NASA was formed.

None of those people studied the shape of the earth.

That's like expecting us to believe that you're an expert in ancient languages because you scored high on your GED.

Uhhhhh......... Newton very enthusiastically studied Galileo.  Galileo proved heliocentrism. Again, heliocentrism doesn't work all that well with a belief in a flat earth and in fact proceeds from the spherical earth premise.

Uhhhhh......... Newton very enthusiastically studied Galileo.  Galileo proved heliocentrism. Again, heliocentrism doesn't work all that well with a belief in a flat earth and in fact proceeds from the spherical earth premise.

We don't have a problem with the idea that the planets we see in the night sky revolve around the sun.

Quote from: Maxine on September 17, 2010, 07:30:05 PM

Uhhhhh......... Newton very enthusiastically studied Galileo.  Galileo proved heliocentrism. Again, heliocentrism doesn't work all that well with a belief in a flat earth and in fact proceeds from the spherical earth premise.

We don't have a problem with Galileo's idea that the planets we see in the night sky revolve around the sun.

You ought to.

Their paths are incompatible with a model of the other planets revolving around the sun while the earth does not. It's a 'having your cake and eating it too' sort of thing.

Their paths are incompatible with a model of the other planets revolving around the sun while the earth does not. It's a 'having your cake and eating it too' sort of thing.

Retrograde movement of the planets in the night sky is compatible with Flat Earth Theory.

Since the planets are moving around the sun while the sun simultaneously moves around the hub of the earth, it can be shown that the planets will occasionally make a little retrograde loop in the sky.

Quote from: Maxine on September 17, 2010, 07:43:26 PM

Their paths are incompatible with a model of the other planets revolving around the sun while the earth does not. It's a 'having your cake and eating it too' sort of thing.

Retrograde movement of the planets in the night sky is compatible with Flat Earth Theory.

....how does that work? 

Also: Newton. Galileo. Heliocentrism means the earth revolves about the sun as well. Thus, the sun (helio) is the center of the earth's orbit, instead of vice versa.

Quote from: Maxine on September 17, 2010, 07:50:28 PM

Retrograde movement of the planets in the night sky is compatible with Flat Earth Theory.

....how does that work?  

Luckily we have a Wiki for such questions:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Planets

Also: Newton. Galileo. Heliocentrism means the earth revolves about the sun as well. Thus, the sun (helio) is the center of the earth's orbit, instead of vice versa.

Copernicus, the father of heliocentricism, limits his inquiry to the study of the motions of the planets in the sky. In his book, Copernicus already assumes that the earth is round and that it moves around the sun.

The system of Copernicus was admitted by its author to be merely an assumption, temporary and incapable of demonstration. The following are his words:

"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. * * * Neither let anyone, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest, in case he should adopt for truth, things feigned for another purpose, he should leave this science more foolish than he came. * * * The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."

The Newtonian and all other "views" and "systems" have the same general character as the "hypothesis of the terrestrial motion," framed by Copernicus. The foundations or premises are always unproved; no proof is ever attempted; the necessity for it is denied; it is considered sufficient that the assumptions seem to explain the phenomena selected. In this way it is that theory supplants theory, and system gives way to system, often in rapid succession, as one failure after another compels opinions to change.

Quote

Quote from: Maxine on September 17, 2010, 07:50:28 PM

Retrograde movement of the planets in the night sky is compatible with Flat Earth Theory.

....how does that work?  

Luckily we have a Wiki for such questions:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Planets

Quote

Also: Newton. Galileo. Heliocentrism means the earth revolves about the sun as well. Thus, the sun (helio) is the center of the earth's orbit, instead of vice versa.

Copernicus limited his inquiry to the study of the motions of the planets in the sky. In his book, Copernicus already assumes that the earth is round and that it moves around the sun.

You're correct. Mea culpa. Galileo taught and championed the heliocentric model that was developed by Copernicus. Well done.

Still. Galileo taught it, Newton studied Galileo's teachings, and there we are where we started, aren't we?

I'm going to post this, then peruse the link you provided me with. Thank you for listing it.

And may I add that it's a pleasure to debate reasonably on the internet this far without resorting to ad hoc attacks?

Very clever. I see your point re: the retrograde motion. Can't say you've not thought it out. I won't pretend to be a planetary scholar, and summon evidence at a whim; however, I am interested that the planets go retrograde several times a *day* in this illustration, when planetary retrograde in actuality is a much slower process. Mercury, the planet closest to the sun, is retrograde for *weeks* at a time. How does that jibe with this model?

I am interested that the planets go retrograde several times a *day* in this illustration

It says beneath the illustration:

"Please note that the planets are moving very slowly around the sun and would not retrograde several times a day as might be implied by the above diagram. The diagram is for illustration purposes only. Several retrogrades a year would be more appropriate, depending on the planet.

The retrograde happens very slowly in the night sky, over a long period of time."

Quote from: Maxine on September 17, 2010, 08:12:01 PM

I am interested that the planets go retrograde several times a *day* in this illustration

It says beneath the illustration:

"Please note that the planets are moving very slowly around the sun and would not retrograde several times a day as might be implied by the above diagram. The diagram is for illustration purposes only. Several retrogrades a year would be more appropriate, depending on the planet.

The retrograde happens very slowly in the night sky, over a long period of time."

By what force does a planet revolve? (So *very* slowly? Around an object 32 miles in diameter?) Can't be gravity, because without more momentum than *that* it would just crash *into* the sun.

By what force does a planet revolve?

Unknown.

Quote

By what force does a planet revolve?

Unknown.

*smiles*

And there we are then, with the sticky wicket. As it's accepted that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, I feel comfortable leaving matters here.

I hope that, given the medium of the internet, you can take this in a non snarky manner but I really do admire your (the general 'your') inventiveness if not your actual science. It's a pleasure to have a back-and-forth that does not immediately devolve into the lowest common denominator. We disagree, but thank you for discussing it as a gentleman.

Quote

Quote from: Maxine on September 17, 2010, 07:50:28 PM

Retrograde movement of the planets in the night sky is compatible with Flat Earth Theory.

....how does that work?  

Luckily we have a Wiki for such questions:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Planets

It should be noted that Tom Bishop is solely responsible for the content in that wiki article.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 17, 2010, 07:55:24 PM

Quote

Quote from: Maxine on September 17, 2010, 07:50:28 PM

Retrograde movement of the planets in the night sky is compatible with Flat Earth Theory.

....how does that work?  

Luckily we have a Wiki for such questions:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Planets

It should be noted that Tom Bishop is solely responsible for the content in that wiki article.

Duly noted.  Yep, I noticed that. =)

I'm sure a better mathematician than I might have further questions about the orbits of the planets in that model, and the observable paths of the planets.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 17, 2010, 07:55:24 PM

Quote

Quote from: Maxine on September 17, 2010, 07:50:28 PM

Retrograde movement of the planets in the night sky is compatible with Flat Earth Theory.

....how does that work?  

Luckily we have a Wiki for such questions:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Planets

It should be noted that Tom Bishop is solely responsible for the content in that wiki article.

The following topic destroyed Tom's Wiki article: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=41354.0

Quote from: markjo on September 17, 2010, 09:38:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 17, 2010, 07:55:24 PM

Quote

Quote from: Maxine on September 17, 2010, 07:50:28 PM

Retrograde movement of the planets in the night sky is compatible with Flat Earth Theory.

....how does that work?  

Luckily we have a Wiki for such questions:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Planets

It should be noted that Tom Bishop is solely responsible for the content in that wiki article.

Duly noted.  Yep, I noticed that. =)

I'm sure a better mathematician than I might have further questions about the orbits of the planets in that model, and the observable paths of the planets.

I've done some poking around the web and have seen several demonstrations of how retrograde motion could work in a geocentric model using epicycles.  Oddly enough, however, they were using a round earth geocentric model, not a flat one.

Quote from: Maxine on September 17, 2010, 09:46:01 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 17, 2010, 09:38:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 17, 2010, 07:55:24 PM

Quote

Quote from: Maxine on September 17, 2010, 07:50:28 PM

Retrograde movement of the planets in the night sky is compatible with Flat Earth Theory.

....how does that work?  

Luckily we have a Wiki for such questions:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Planets

It should be noted that Tom Bishop is solely responsible for the content in that wiki article.

Duly noted.  Yep, I noticed that. =)

I'm sure a better mathematician than I might have further questions about the orbits of the planets in that model, and the observable paths of the planets.

I've done some poking around the web and have seen several demonstrations of how retrograde motion could work in a geocentric model using epicycles.  Oddly enough, however, they were using a round earth geocentric model, not a flat one.

I've no doubt retrograde motion could work with geocentrism, but that's that doesn't make THAT retrograde model jibes with the known paths of the planets in the night sky. But, of course, not being a planetary scholar nor a mathematician.... I'm not the one qualified to pursue this line. However, I would question other board posters' bona fides as well.

Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking. They are more credible than anyone on these forums and they never spoke of a flat Earth. Also, Newton and Einstein were both dead before NASA was formed.

Countless Astronauts, Cosmonauts, Pilots, Sailors, Antarctic explorers and researchers based there, hell anyone with some sort of satellite tv can tell you Earth is a globe.

Quote from: miscquito on September 17, 2010, 05:35:40 PM

Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking. They are more credible than anyone on these forums and they never spoke of a flat Earth. Also, Newton and Einstein were both dead before NASA was formed.

Countless Astronauts, Cosmonauts, Pilots, Sailors, Antarctic explorers and researchers based there, hell anyone with some sort of satellite tv can tell you Earth is a globe.

Na, they're all part of the conspiracy.

lol

Quote from: shark ethic on September 20, 2010, 04:06:34 AM

Quote from: miscquito on September 17, 2010, 05:35:40 PM

Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking. They are more credible than anyone on these forums and they never spoke of a flat Earth. Also, Newton and Einstein were both dead before NASA was formed.

Countless Astronauts, Cosmonauts, Pilots, Sailors, Antarctic explorers and researchers based there, hell anyone with some sort of satellite tv can tell you Earth is a globe.

Na, they're all part of the conspiracy.

lol

They said when I joined the RAAF: "now you are committed the lie, tell no one the truth"
lol

I've no doubt retrograde motion could work with geocentrism, but that's that doesn't make THAT retrograde model jibes with the known paths of the planets in the night sky. But, of course, not being a planetary scholar nor a mathematician.... I'm not the one qualified to pursue this line. However, I would question other board posters' bona fides as well.

However, no geocentric model works with a FE. Planets have to travel around the Earth to be geocentric and they can't in FET.

Quote from: Vindictus on September 20, 2010, 04:11:53 AM

Quote from: shark ethic on September 20, 2010, 04:06:34 AM

Quote from: miscquito on September 17, 2010, 05:35:40 PM

Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking. They are more credible than anyone on these forums and they never spoke of a flat Earth. Also, Newton and Einstein were both dead before NASA was formed.

Countless Astronauts, Cosmonauts, Pilots, Sailors, Antarctic explorers and researchers based there, hell anyone with some sort of satellite tv can tell you Earth is a globe.

Na, they're all part of the conspiracy.

lol

They said when I joined the RAAF: "now you are committed the lie, tell no one the truth"
lol

Oh, so you're Australian?

Well, apparently Australia doesn't exist in some FE models either. So you're definitely a liar.

On another note though; you're in the RAAF? How long have you been flying? I didn't think Australian pilots did much, really.