The movement of the Sun.

According the the Flat earth FAQ, the sun moves around the earth lighting up specific areas of the surface at different times.  The sun is being held up by dark energy (at least so far no one has corrected me on that one in my other thread), and FE has no explanation of what powers the sun. 

My question is, what generates the horizontal movement of the sun into a regular repeated pattern? 

I am not sure what powers the sun, but I am sure it have something to do with UA.
The sun circles are giant disc. Because of the slight tilt of the Earth this causes the seasons.
Beyond the light of our sun is the great barrier, beyond, is Eden.

And do not reference the FAQ, it is full of untruths.

I am not sure what powers the sun, but I am sure it have something to do with UA.
The sun circles are giant disc. Because of the slight tilt of the Earth this causes the seasons.
Beyond the light of our sun is the great barrier, beyond, is Eden.

And do not reference the FAQ, it is full of untruths.

But what causes it to move? And what is UA?

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on May 21, 2011, 10:09:45 PM

I am not sure what powers the sun, but I am sure it have something to do with UA.
The sun circles are giant disc. Because of the slight tilt of the Earth this causes the seasons.
Beyond the light of our sun is the great barrier, beyond, is Eden.

And do not reference the FAQ, it is full of untruths.

But what causes it to move? And what is UA?

MORE LURK PLEASE

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 22, 2011, 12:44:41 AM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on May 21, 2011, 10:09:45 PM

I am not sure what powers the sun, but I am sure it have something to do with UA.
The sun circles are giant disc. Because of the slight tilt of the Earth this causes the seasons.
Beyond the light of our sun is the great barrier, beyond, is Eden.

And do not reference the FAQ, it is full of untruths.

But what causes it to move? And what is UA?

MORE LURK PLEASE

Um, well ive actually read alot of the forums, and ive only seen UA referenced as UA, and ive read almost eh entire FAQ, but i dont remember it using the term UA.  Not to mention, ive been told various times not to look at the FAQ for information.  On top of that, you did not answer the question regarding what causes the sun to move. I'm going to rate your post on a scale of 1 to pointless, and I'm going to give it a pointless. 

Ahh, universal acceleration, well that has absolutely nothing to do with a process that would drive the sun's horizontal motion.

It is unknown what drives the sun's horizontal movement.

It is unknown what drives the sun's horizontal movement.

This is kind of a big issue for the FET to be accepted by the scientific community or even the general population.  You would have to come up with another force, making your theory much more complicated than a relatively simple (unless you dive into great detail) gravity model.

You would have to come up with another force

No, we wouldn't. We are Zetetics. Zetetics are empiricists and thinkers of reason. A Zetetic would say that the sun's yearly movement is visible to us, but its cause is unknown and leave it at that.

A Scientician, an unreasonable person, would imagine that "gravitons/black matter/magnetic photons/higs-bosons did it."

A scientician, an unreasonable person, would imagine that "sub-atomic gravitons/black matter/magnetic photons/higs-bosons did it."

Unless evidence points towards ""sub-atomic gravitons/black matter/magnetic photons/higs-bosons". Quit making real scientists out to be lunatics.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 22, 2011, 05:36:38 PM

You would have to come up with another force

No, we wouldn't. Zeteticism is a philosophy of empiricism. A Zetetic would say that the sun's yearly movement is visible to us, but its cause is unknown and leave it at that.

A Scientician would imagine that "gravitons/black matter/magnetic photons/higs-bosons did it."

You just posted a link for me to look at which shows a theory of how the planets move.  You cannot be 100 percent sure thats how they move, because it is not 100 percent accurate in its predictions of where the planets should be and when they should be there.  Thats the problem with Epicycles.  Now you are telling me that you cannot support theories, or contemplate what is going on around you unless you have cold hard evidence of truth?

The real truth is that when there is a pretty simple question like "what powers the sun" or "why is the sun moving across the sky" and you don't have a good answer, because it requires the creation of a very special rule set, like Force X only works on object Y, you simply duck behind your Zeteticism.  I believe this because you are willing to claim to know the shape of an object so large you cant see it in its entirety unless you view it from space, a place you don't believe that anyone has ever been for an extended period of time.  Instead you conduct tests from your house, looking across the bay, you look at pictures and don't see the earth being spherical, in other words, you look at pieces of the puzzle and try to understand the bigger picture like every other scientist.

However, this is not true when you examine other things, for instance, pictures of the earth from space, of it rotating, pictures of men on the moon, men in microgravity, the shape of the moon, retrograde motion.  For all of these things, you go into the discussion with the belief that the earth is indeed flat, and so even though there is no evidence of a conspiracy, beyond your belief that the earth is flat(which is not a Zetetic view unless you have seen the whole planet from space) you believe in a NASA conspiracy.  See you looked at what you believe ( the earth is flat) then looked at information (NASA) and decided that NASA was just a front organization for money because it contradicted what you believed, not because you saw any direct evidence for it. You jumped to a conclusion!  Thats not very Zetetic of you!

Your not a Zetetic in my understanding of the word, which could be wrong, but i am sure that you are being inconsistent in your actions. You claim not to jump to conclusions, you only accept the truth, yet you theorize many things.

Long story short, you engage in what is a clear cut example of Confirmation Bias.  You believe the earth is flat, and you look for evidence that supports that theory, and discredit evidence that says otherwise.  You support the scientific method, until it leads to conclusions that support a round earth.

Quote

A scientician, an unreasonable person, would imagine that "sub-atomic gravitons/black matter/magnetic photons/higs-bosons did it."

Unless evidence points towards ""sub-atomic gravitons/black matter/magnetic photons/higs-bosons". Quit making real scientists out to be lunatics.

Scienticians are notorious for using liberal amounts of fantasy in their dogma. One needs to look no further than gravity. Many scienticians believe that gravity is caused by a sub-atomic particle called the Graviton. No one has ever seen or detected a graviton, and there is a stunningly zero evidence for their existence, yet scienticians continue to go on and believe that gravitons are the cause for gravity.

You just posted a link for me to look at which shows a theory of how the planets move.  You cannot be 100 percent sure thats how they move, because it is not 100 percent accurate in its predictions of where the planets should be and when they should be there.  Thats the problem with Epicycles.

Again, in the other thread the link I posted is describing a heliocentric solar system, not epicycles.

Now you are telling me that you cannot support theories, or contemplate what is going on around you unless you have cold hard evidence of truth?

No. I do not support hypothesizing. I support empiricism. All ideas must be backed by empirical evidence.

There is empirical evidence that the planets revolve around the sun. The retrograde movement of the planets can only suggest that the planets are revolting around multiple points consistent with a heliocentric system. Venus and Mercury have been seen to occult the sun, and have phases in a manner and pattern to suggest that they are moving around the sun. Hence, it is strongly suggested that the planets are moving around the sun.

The real truth is that when there is a pretty simple question like "what powers the sun" or "why is the sun moving across the sky" and you don't have a good answer, because it requires the creation of a very special rule set, like Force X only works on object Y, you simply duck behind your Zeteticism.

We do not have the funding to study the sun, to take samples of its matter to determine what powers it, or to discover what cosmic forces are behind its motions.

If you want specific research conducted please send your money to tom.bishop.enterprises@gmail.com. Until then you should cease your complaining.

Quote from: Harutsedo on May 22, 2011, 05:43:45 PM

Quote

A scientician, an unreasonable person, would imagine that "sub-atomic gravitons/black matter/magnetic photons/higs-bosons did it."

Unless evidence points towards ""sub-atomic gravitons/black matter/magnetic photons/higs-bosons". Quit making real scientists out to be lunatics.

Scienticians are notorious for using liberal amounts of fantasy in their dogma. One  has to look no further than gravity. Many scienticians believe that gravity is caused by a sub-atomic particle called the Graviton. No one has ever seen or detected a graviton, and there is a stunningly zero evidence for their existence, yet scienticians continue to go on and believe that gravitons are the cause for gravity.

Long story short, you engage in what is a clear cut example of Confirmation Bias.  You believe the earth is flat, and you look for evidence that supports that theory, and discredit evidence that says otherwise.  You support the scientific method, until it leads to conclusions that support a round earth.

Long story short, you engage in what is a clear cut example of Confirmation Bias.  You believe the earth is flat, and you look for evidence that supports that theory, and discredit evidence that says otherwise.  You support the scientific method, until it leads to conclusions that support a round earth.

I suggest you read Earth Not a Globe. Zeteticism is a philosophy of empiricism. Zetetics proceed only by inquiry, without bias for any particular theory. We do the experiments and let reality do the talking.

It's the Rounders, the theorisors, who practice confirmation bias, who do nothing more than "stand on the shoulders of giants" and build one indemonstrable hypothesis upon another until the entire house of cards comes toppling down.

From Chapter 1 of Earth Not a Globe:

ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.

CHAPTER I.

ZETETIC AND THEORETIC DEFINED AND COMPARED.

THE term Zetetic is derived from the Greek verb Zeteo; which means to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. It is here used in contradistinction from the word "theoretic," the meaning of which is, speculative--imaginary--not tangible,--scheming, but not proving.

None can doubt that by making special experiments, and collecting manifest and undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom, the result must be more consistent and satisfactory than the contrary method of framing a theory or system--assuming the existence and operation of causes of which there is no direct and practical evidence, and which is only claimed to be "admitted for the sake of argument," and for the purpose of giving an apparent and plausible, but not necessarily truthful explanation of phenomena. All theories are of this character. "Supposing, instead of inquiring, imagining systems instead of learning from observation and experience the true constitution of things. Speculative men, by the force of genius may invent systems that will perhaps be greatly admired for a time; these, however, are phantoms which the force of truth will sooner or later dispel; and while we are pleased with the deceit, true philosophy with all the arts and improvements that depend upon it, suffers. The real state of things escapes our observation; or, if it presents itself to us, we are apt either to reject it wholly as fiction, or, by new efforts of a vain ingenuity to interweave it with our own conceits, and labour to make it tally with our favourite schemes. Thus, by blending together parts so ill-suited, the whole comes forth an absurd composition of truth and error. * * * These have not done near so much harm as that pride and ambition which has led philosophers to think it beneath them to offer anything less to the world than a complete and finished system of Nature; and, in order to obtain this at once, to take the liberty of inventing certain principles and hypotheses from which they pretend to explain all her mysteries."

"Theories are things of uncertain mode. They depend, in a great measure, upon the humour and caprice of an age, which is sometimes in love with one, and sometimes with another."

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. Until the practice of theorising is universally relinquished, philosophy will continue to be looked upon by the bulk of mankind as a vain and mumbling pretension, antagonistic to the highest aspirations of humanity. Let there be adopted a true and practical free-thought method, with sequence as the only test of truth and consistency, and the philosopher may become the Priest of Science and the real benefactor of his species. "Honesty of thought is to look truth in the face, not in the side face, but in the full front; not merely to look at truth when found, but to seek it till found. There must be no tampering with conviction, no hedging or mental prevarication; no making 'the wish father to the thought;' no fearing to arrive at a particular result. To think honestly, then, is to think freely; freedom and honesty of thought are truly but interchangeable terms. For how can he think honestly, who dreads his being landed in this or that conclusion? Such an one has already predetermined in his heart how he shall think, and what he shall believe. Perfect truth, like perfect love, casteth out fear."

Let the method of simple inquiry--the "Zetetic" process be exclusively adopted--experiments tried and facts collected--not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind, but of every kind and form bearing on the subject, before a conclusion is drawn, or a conviction affirmed.

"Nature speaks to us in a peculiar language; in the language of phenomena. She answers at all times the questions which are put to her; and such questions are experiments."

"Nature lies before us as a panorama; let us explore and find delight, she puts questions to us, and we may also question her; the answers may ofttimes be hard to spell, but no dreaded sphinx shall interfere when human wisdom falters."

We have an excellent example of a "Zetetic" process in an arithmetical operation, more especially so in what is called the "Golden Rule," or the "Rule of Three." If a hundredweight of any article costs a given sum, what will some other weight, less or more, be worth? The separate figures may be considered as the elements or facts in the inquiry; the placing and working of them as the logical arrangement of the evidence; and the quotient, or answer, as the fair and natural deduction,--the unavoidable or necessitated verdict. Hence, in every arithmetical or "Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.

We have another example of the "Zetetic" process in our Courts of Justice. A prisoner is placed at the bar; evidence for and against him is demanded: when advanced it is carefully arranged and patiently considered. It is then presented to the Jury for solemn reconsideration, and whatever verdict is given, it is advanced as the unavoidable conclusion necessitated by the whole of the evidence. In trials, for justice, society would not tolerate any other procedure. Assumption of guilt, and prohibition of all evidence to the contrary, is a practice not to be found among any of the civilised nations of the earth--scarcely indeed, among savages and barbarians; and yet assumption of premises, and selection of evidence to corroborate assumptions, is everywhere and upon all subjects the practice of theoretical philosophers!

The "Zetetic" process is also the most natural method of investigation. Nature herself always teaches it; it is her own continual suggestion; children invariably seek information by asking questions, by earnestly inquiring from those around them. Fearlessly, anxiously, and without the slightest regard to consequences, question after question, in rapid and exciting succession, will often proceed from a child, until the most profound in learning and philosophy, will feel puzzled to reply; and often the searching cross-examinations of a mere natural tyro, can only be brought to an end by an order to retire--to bed--to school--to play--to anywhere--rather than that the fiery "Zetetic" ordeal shall be continued.

If then both Nature and justice, as well as the common sense and practical experience of mankind demand, and will not be content with less or other than the "Zetetic" process, why is it ignored and constantly violated by the learned in philosophy? What right have they to begin their disquisitions with fanciful data, and then to demand that, to these all surrounding phenomena be moulded. As private individuals they have, of course, a right to "do as they like with their own;" but as authors and public teachers their unnatural efforts are immeasurably pernicious. Like a poor animal tied to a stake in the centre of a meadow, where it can only feed in a limited circle, the theoretical philosopher is tethered to his premises, enslaved by his own assumptions, and however great his talent, his influence, his opportunities, he can only rob his fellow men of their intellectual freedom and independence, and convert them into slaves like him-self. In this respect astronomical science is especially faulty. It assumes the existence of certain data; it then applies these data to the explanation of certain phenomena. If the solution seems plausible it is considered that the data may be looked upon as proved--demonstrated by the apparently satisfactory explanation they have afforded. Facts, and explanations of a different character, are put aside as unworthy of regard; since that which is already assumed seems to explain matters, there need be no further concern. Guided by this principle, the secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society (Professor De Morgan, of Trinity College, Cambridge), reviewing a paper by the author, in the Athen?um, for March 25th, 1865, says: "The evidence that the earth is round is but cumulative and circumstantial; scores of phenomena ask, separately and independently, what other explanation can be imagined except the sphericity of the earth?" It is thus candidly admitted that there is no direct and positive evidence that the earth is round, that it is only "imagined" or assumed to be so in order to afford an explanation of "scores of phenomena." This is precisely the language of Copernicus, of Newton, and of all astronomers who have laboured to prove the rotundity of the earth. It is pitiful in the extreme that after so many ages of almost unopposed indulgence, philosophers instead of beginning to seek, before everything else, the true constitution of the physical world, are still to be seen labouring only to frame hypotheses, and to reconcile phenomena with imaginary and ever-shifting foundations. Their labour is simply to repeat and perpetuate the self-deception of their predecessors. Surely the day is not far distant when the very complications which their numerous theories have created, will startle them into wakefulness, and convince them that for long ages past they have but been idly dreaming! Time wasted, energies thrown away, truth obscured, and falsehood rampant, constitute a charge so grave that coming generations will look upon them as the bitterest enemies of civilisation, the heaviest drags on the wheels of progress, and the most offensive embodiment of frivolity, pride of learning, and canting formality; worse than this--by their position, their standing in the front ranks of learning, they deceive the public. They appear to represent a solid phalanx of truth and wisdom, when in reality they are but as the flimsy ice of an hour's induration--all surface, without substance, or depth, or reliability, or power to save from danger and ultimate destruction.

Let the practice of theorising be abandoned as one oppressive to the reasoning powers, fatal to the full development of truth, and, in every sense, inimical to the solid progress of sound philosophy.

If, to ascertain the true figure and condition of the earth, we adopt the "Zetetic" process, which truly is the only one sufficiently reliable, we shall find that instead of its being a globe--one of an infinite number of worlds moving on axes and in an orbit round the sun, it is the directly contrary--a Plane, without diurnal or progressive motion, and unaccompanied by anything in the firmament analogous to itself; or, in other words, that it is the only known material world.

Tom Bishop, I respectfully disagree with your process of finding truth as being Zetetic. OrbisNonSufficit has hit it spot on.

For one example you looked at a high altitude picture that had a sharp angle almost parallel to the Earth's surface. Heavy light refraction was clearly visible due to the miles high of blue halo out towards the horizon. The shape we could see was disc-like. Now, it can be made clear to any primary school kid that such a photo would be inconclusive as to whether it was a disc or a part of a sphere. You however jumped straight to the conclusion that it was a disc.
This display of Zeteticism is exactly what OrbisNonSufficit was talking about.

Now on the other side of the spectrum, we explained to you that the sun must be fusing hydrogen as its power source because spectroscopy shows just that. The burning of many elements has shown to have all distinct patterns in the bands of light they produce, and the bands of burning hydrogen match up precisely with that from the sun's rays. So what was your response? You claim that since we haven't tested each and every possible element, compound, molecule, alloy, etc. that we can't conclusively say the sun is burning hydrogen.

Suddenly, you are approaching a problem in exactly the way you should have from the start. But the only reason you approached it in this such way this time is because, as OrbisNonSufficit said, you are resorting to the method of Confirmation Bias rather than Zeteticism to defend your position.

Also, on the subject of zetetics and evil of hypotheses:

  Celestial Gears (Bishop)
  Anti-moon (Username)
  Bendy Light (Various)
  Lunar Eplipse "dark object" (Robotham)

...are all "hypotheses" put forward by so-called Zetetists on this forum.   They are ideas (suggestions) that may explain phenomena, but none have been independently observed.

Also, on the subject of zetetics and evil of hypotheses:

  Celestial Gears (Bishop)
  Anti-moon (Username)
  Bendy Light (Various)
  Lunar Eplipse "dark object" (Robotham)

...are all "hypotheses" put forward by so-called Zetetists on this forum.   They are ideas (suggestions) that may explain phenomena, but none have been independently observed.

The anti-moon is a result of neozetetic revelation, as is most of my work.  It eliminates the need for any hypothesis or theory to even be involved.  However you are correct in the important sense and I need to review my work for its "theoretical" basis, especially the anti-moon.

Also, on the subject of zetetics and evil of hypotheses:

  Celestial Gears (Bishop)

...are all "hypotheses" put forward by so-called Zetetists on this forum.   They are ideas (suggestions) that may explain phenomena, but none have been independently observed.

I've observed the stars rotate above my head. Ergo, I can state emperically that the stars rotate above my head.

Reality actually favors FET on this matter. It takes a leap of imagination to look at the stars moving and say that the earth is moving. Clearly a case of disbelieving one's own eyes.

Quote from: Moon squirter on May 23, 2011, 05:39:26 AM

Also, on the subject of zetetics and evil of hypotheses:

  Celestial Gears (Bishop)

...are all "hypotheses" put forward by so-called Zetetists on this forum.   They are ideas (suggestions) that may explain phenomena, but none have been independently observed.

I've observed the stars rotate above my head. Ergo, I can state emperically that the stars rotate above my head.

Reality actually favors FET on this matter. It takes a leap of imagination to look at the stars moving and say that the earth is moving. Clearly a case of disbelieving one's own eyes.

Indeed;  In fact all of RE astronomy is flawed at a base level in this way.

Quote from: Moon squirter on May 23, 2011, 05:39:26 AM

Also, on the subject of zetetics and evil of hypotheses:

  Celestial Gears (Bishop)

...are all "hypotheses" put forward by so-called Zetetists on this forum.   They are ideas (suggestions) that may explain phenomena, but none have been independently observed.

I've observed the stars rotate above my head. Ergo, I can state emperically that the stars rotate above my head.

Reality actually favors FET on this matter. It takes a leap of imagination to look at the stars moving and say that the earth is moving. Clearly a case of disbelieving one's own eyes.

That is, INCORRECT. You see stars rotating above your head: why you conclude that stars rotate and not that stars stand still whyle YOU rotate?

Quote from: Moon squirter on May 23, 2011, 05:39:26 AM

Also, on the subject of zetetics and evil of hypotheses:

  Celestial Gears (Bishop)

...are all "hypotheses" put forward by so-called Zetetists on this forum.   They are ideas (suggestions) that may explain phenomena, but none have been independently observed.

I've observed the stars rotate above my head. Ergo, I can state emperically that the stars rotate above my head.

Reality actually favors FET on this matter. It takes a leap of imagination to look at the stars moving and say that the earth is moving. Clearly a case of disbelieving one's own eyes.

But it completely fails to explain how this "gear" works at or south of the equator.  How the Celestial gears would work would cause the stars south of the equator to revolve completely around the opposite direction then they really are.

Your statement of "I've observed the stars rotate above my head" actually pins my point.  Your observations that lead to your conclusions are only valid for your points of reference.  How do you know what is happening elsewhere?  You ignore it if it doesn't match your thinking - or claim it is "unZetically researched" or make up a -Hypotheses- of why what you observe does not happen elsewere.

I've made this argument more than a few times on this website.  If you are living south of the Equator - all your observations in your locality would prove that Antarctica is really the Pole and that the Arctic is the Rim.

Berny
Few people care where you really are since they aren't there.

Reality actually favors FET on this matter. It takes a leap of imagination to look at the stars moving and say that the earth is moving. Clearly a case of disbelieving one's own eyes.

The same argument was used thousands of years ago - we can't feel the Earth moving so it doesn't move.

Good on you, yet more proof that your mind is but that of a caveman's.

Quote from: Harutsedo on May 22, 2011, 05:43:45 PM

Quote

A scientician, an unreasonable person, would imagine that "sub-atomic gravitons/black matter/magnetic photons/higs-bosons did it."

Unless evidence points towards ""sub-atomic gravitons/black matter/magnetic photons/higs-bosons". Quit making real scientists out to be lunatics.

Scienticians are notorious for using liberal amounts of fantasy in their dogma. One needs to look no further than gravity. Many scienticians believe that gravity is caused by a sub-atomic particle called the Graviton. No one has ever seen or detected a graviton, and there is a stunningly zero evidence for their existence, yet scienticians continue to go on and believe that gravitons are the cause for gravity.

Tom according to you, no one has ever seen the entire earth at what time, yet you jump to the conclusion that it is indeed flat.  That is not what a Zetetic would do.  There is as much evidence if not more that the earth is indeed round, you just happen to discredit all of that with a NASA conspiracy that there is no direct evidence of either, which is not the way of a Zetetic either.  Again, you doubt the scientific method only when it leads us to conclusions that go against FET.

i dont think any scientist of RE has stated gravity works with gravitons...

perhaps you are thinking of star trek?

Reality actually favors FET on this matter.

Do I detect surprise, Tommy B? Because it would certainly be a surprising revelation for all of us.

Quote from: Moon squirter on May 23, 2011, 05:39:26 AM

Also, on the subject of zetetics and evil of hypotheses:

  Celestial Gears (Bishop)

...are all "hypotheses" put forward by so-called Zetetists on this forum.   They are ideas (suggestions) that may explain phenomena, but none have been independently observed.

I've observed the stars rotate above my head. Ergo, I can state emperically that the stars rotate above my head.

Reality actually favors FET on this matter. It takes a leap of imagination to look at the stars moving and say that the earth is moving. Clearly a case of disbelieving one's own eyes.

Actually it takes no such leap, all you have to think about is frictionless movement.  If you maintain the same speed it does not feel as though you are moving.  Think about an airplane, after you take off, if you were to throw a ball up in the air, it would fall back in your lap, not shoot to the back of the plane.  so as long as we are not accelerating, we wont feel movement.  Then its just a matter of perspective, its just as logical to believe that the planet is rotating.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 23, 2011, 06:09:53 AM

Quote from: Moon squirter on May 23, 2011, 05:39:26 AM

Also, on the subject of zetetics and evil of hypotheses:

  Celestial Gears (Bishop)

...are all "hypotheses" put forward by so-called Zetetists on this forum.   They are ideas (suggestions) that may explain phenomena, but none have been independently observed.

I've observed the stars rotate above my head. Ergo, I can state emperically that the stars rotate above my head.

Reality actually favors FET on this matter. It takes a leap of imagination to look at the stars moving and say that the earth is moving. Clearly a case of disbelieving one's own eyes.

Actually it takes no such leap, all you have to think about is frictionless movement.  If you maintain the same speed it does not feel as though you are moving.  Think about an airplane, after you take off, if you were to throw a ball up in the air, it would fall back in your lap, not shoot to the back of the plane.  so as long as we are not accelerating, we wont feel movement.  Then its just a matter of perspective, its just as logical to believe that the planet is rotating.

There is also the Coriolis Effect: how FEB explain this phenomenon?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 23, 2011, 06:09:53 AM

Quote from: Moon squirter on May 23, 2011, 05:39:26 AM

Also, on the subject of zetetics and evil of hypotheses:

  Celestial Gears (Bishop)

...are all "hypotheses" put forward by so-called Zetetists on this forum.   They are ideas (suggestions) that may explain phenomena, but none have been independently observed.

I've observed the stars rotate above my head. Ergo, I can state emperically that the stars rotate above my head.

Reality actually favors FET on this matter. It takes a leap of imagination to look at the stars moving and say that the earth is moving. Clearly a case of disbelieving one's own eyes.

Actually it takes no such leap, all you have to think about is frictionless movement.  If you maintain the same speed it does not feel as though you are moving.  Think about an airplane, after you take off, if you were to throw a ball up in the air, it would fall back in your lap, not shoot to the back of the plane.  so as long as we are not accelerating, we wont feel movement.  Then its just a matter of perspective, its just as logical to believe that the planet is rotating.

He already understands this quite well, he's just being an FE'er - choosing to believe theories when they're supportive to their cause.

Quote from: Moon squirter on May 23, 2011, 05:39:26 AM

Also, on the subject of zetetics and evil of hypotheses:

  Celestial Gears (Bishop)

...are all "hypotheses" put forward by so-called Zetetists on this forum.   They are ideas (suggestions) that may explain phenomena, but none have been independently observed.

I've observed the stars rotate above my head. Ergo, I can state empirically that the stars rotate above my head.

And the gears?  It's your hypothesis to explain why the southern sky turns the other way.  (berny_74 already covering this much better)

Reality actually favors FET on this matter. It takes a leap of imagination to look at the stars moving and say that the earth is moving. Clearly a case of disbelieving one's own eyes.

No - FET does not explain how the sky behaves like a spherical "dome" and not a wheel (as it would on a FE).
Hence, "reality" favours a spherical earth.  Remember that you once said The one thing I've learned in life is that nothing is as it seems.