Telescope

The FE theory can be disproven with a simple telescope.

True or false?

The FE theory itself? FALSE.

Individual components of FE? TRUE.

Here are just some aspects of FE that can be disproven with a scope.

1. The shape of the moon (Libration)

2. The idea that surface features and atmospheric haze impead you from seeing to the other end of the Earth. i.e. Telescopes can pick out stars the instant they rize over the horizon, despit th fact that you are not supposed to be able to see that far in the FE model.

3.  Telescopes can confirm the spherocity of other planets.  Users like Dogplatter have come up with complicated explinations to account for these observasions, but they fall apart when examined closely.

And of course, there are dozens more. . .

Gravity.
The moon being spherical.
The sun being the center of the solar system(and spherical).
Distance to other stars.
Spherical planets.
Satellites.
Spacecrafts.

The sun is not the center of the universe.  The solar system yes, but not the universe.

The sun is not the center of the universe.  The solar system yes, but not the universe.

Unless there's a even bigger sun!

Edited post. Carry on.  :roll:

Edited post. Carry on.  :roll:

Not the centre of the galaxy either.  The solar system is contained within one of the arms of the Milky Way galaxy ;P

Quote from: "Xargo"

Edited post. Carry on.  :roll:

Not the centre of the galaxy either.  The solar system is contained within one of the arms of the Milky Way galaxy ;P

GAH! Happy!?  :x  

Much better.    Although, since there are many more than just one solar system, perhaps you could label it the "Sol" system.  That seems to be the popular title most people give it.

And while you're at it, change "moon" to "The moon"
people might confuse it to one of jupiters moons.

Maybe I should edit and name it "da hood". I think some rapper used that phrase instead of solar system once.



Ahem, anyways. Any flat earther wanna join the discussion?

yes a telescope doesnt prove anything

Gravity.

A telescope lets you see the behaviors of the cosmos that you explain by gravity. I explain it by shmavity, a force unique to the FE universe that pushes the stars around. Not proof.

The moon being spherical.

Which in itself wouldn't be disproof of the FE, even if it were true.

The sun being the center of the solar system.

This is like the gravity thing. Just one explanation for the movements of the planets through the sky. I choose to believe in shmavity instead.

Distance to other stars.

I contend there is to much atmospheric distortion for triangulation or parallax to be used for this purpose.

Spherical planets.

I don't belive this is true, but even if it were it wouldn't prove the earth is not flat. I have a basketball in my closet, but that doesn't prove the earth is round; why should some astronomical mass be any different?

Satellites. Spacecrafts.

A telescope can prove you see funny looking airplanes in the sky, but they can't prove that what you're seeing is a satellite.

Quote from: "Xargo"

Gravity.

A telescope lets you see the behaviors of the cosmos that you explain by gravity. I explain it by shmavity, a force unique to the FE universe that pushes the stars around. Not proof.

It's proof against the FE theory, as gravity - as explained with modern science - does not exist according to the FE model.

Quote

The moon being spherical.

Which in itself wouldn't be disproof of the FE, even if it were true.

It disproves of the FE theory that the moon is flat, which is a good example for just how little FE build their theories on science rather than nonsense. If you're wrong about such a simple thing as the moon being round, then why should anyone believe you when you speak of the Earth being flat?

This is like the gravity thing. Just one explanation for the movements of the planets through the sky. I choose to believe in shmavity instead.

An explanation for the movements of the planets in the sky?.. Stay on topic, lol.

I contend there is to much atmospheric distortion for triangulation or parallax to be used for this purpose.

Not valid.

I don't belive this is true, but even if it were it wouldn't prove the earth is not flat. I have a basketball in my closet, but that doesn't prove the earth is round; why should some astronomical mass be any different?

Basketballs and planets are not quite the same thing.
And the probability for a flat planet when all other planets are round is as good as zero. As to counter your basketball-example: Have you ever seen a flat apple?

A telescope can prove you see funny looking airplanes in the sky, but they can't prove that what you're seeing is a satellite.

They can.  :roll:

It's proof against the FE theory, as gravity - as explained with modern science - does not exist according to the FE model.

Of course it doesn't, and we don't need gravity to have planets and stars move through the sky.

Quote from: "Unimportant"

This is like the gravity thing. Just one explanation for the movements of the planets through the sky. I choose to believe in shmavity instead.

An explanation for the movements of the planets in the sky?.. Stay on topic, lol.

Oh, so so sorry.

I guess I'm way off base. I thought the only way you could possibly assertain that the sun is the center of the solar system is by observing the movement of the planets, and concluding that they too orbit the sun (like you suppose earth does).

Since that's wrong, how do you tell that the sun is at the center of the solar system?

Of course it doesn't, and we don't need gravity to have planets and stars move through the sky.

Actually, we do. Buy a telescope and study some astronomy, you'll figure it out soon enough. :wink:

Quote from: "Xargo"

Quote from: "Unimportant"

This is like the gravity thing. Just one explanation for the movements of the planets through the sky. I choose to believe in shmavity instead.

An explanation for the movements of the planets in the sky?.. Stay on topic, lol.

Oh, so so sorry.

Hey! No prob!

I guess I'm way off base. I thought the only way you could possibly assertain that the sun is the center of the solar system is by observing the movement of the planets, and concluding that they too orbit the sun (like you suppose earth does).

Well, we could also study the eclipses of other planets, which is a simple and good enough proof. The lightened part of the planets - which we all know are rotating, and thus round - will always face the sun. This would not be possible, were the sun flat or not the center of the solar system.

The sun is not the center of the universe.  The solar system yes, but not the universe.

Under big bang theory, technically everywhere is the centre of the universe.  :wink:

i thought that luke guy was the centre of the universe

If you blindly accept what the Government tells you I think that very much depends on the curvature of the universe. According to mainstream science it looks like the universe doesn't have positive curvature and therefore has an actual middle, rather than it being everywhere.

Actually, we do. Buy a telescope and study some astronomy, you'll figure it out soon enough.

No, you've got a decent explanation for the movement of the stars in gravity, but far from the only explanation.

For example, invisible space aliens push the planets around just to trick us.

There, alternatve explanation, and it would appear exactly the same as it would in your gravity-inclusive model.

Well, we could also study the eclipses of other planets, which is a simple and good enough proof. The lightened part of the planets - which we all know are rotating, and thus round - will always face the sun. This would not be possible, were the sun flat or not the center of the solar system.

No, you made it very clear you were concluding the sun was the center of the universe based on something other than observation of the planets.

I want to know what that alternative method is.

Quote

Actually, we do. Buy a telescope and study some astronomy, you'll figure it out soon enough.

No, you've got a decent explanation for the movement of the stars in gravity, but far from the only explanation.
For example, invisible space aliens push the planets around just to trick us.

This is not an explanation, but a an unreasonable hypothesis.

There, alternatve explanation, and it would appear exactly the same as it would in your gravity-inclusive model.

Actually, no.

Quote from: "Xargo"

Well, we could also study the eclipses of other planets, which is a simple and good enough proof. The lightened part of the planets - which we all know are rotating, and thus round - will always face the sun. This would not be possible, were the sun flat or not the center of the solar system.

No, you made it very clear you were concluding the sun was the center of the universe based on something other than observation of the planets.

I think we went through that I did not mean the universe, already.
And I base the fact that the sun is the center of the solar system on several things. Lightening of other planets, other planets rotations (where they are always circling the sun), seasons etc.. The old RE bullshit, you know.

I want to know what that alternative method is.

Most have been covered on this forum. Use the search function.
Anyway, I don't see the point for why you need to hear about an alternative method, since you are yet to disprove the current explanation that I've provided so far (not including the ones i just wrote).

Abandoned? Big shock.

A telescope can prove you see funny looking airplanes in the sky, but they can't prove that what you're seeing is a satellite.

Aeroplanes cannot fly at those altitudes (there is no atmosphere), and they certainly cannot fly at those speeds, especially when satellites are such an un-aerodynamic shape.

I have personally seen a satellite through a telescope with my own eyes, so I know for a fact that they exist.

I contend there is to much atmospheric distortion for triangulation or parallax to be used for this purpose.

Not very good with optical geometry are you?

At avery simple level, if your assertion was valid there would be a marked difference in star positions when you change altitude or are in places with exceptionally dry air, like Death Valley.

Clarity increases, but star positions stay the same.  

And a star map would be useless, unless it was made for the particular hour you are looking up in the sky.  You could not just rotate the chart to the correct hour and location, the stars would be shifting all aver the place if atmospheric distortion operated at the level needed for the FE explanation of parallax and the horizon affects.  A half decent amateur astronomer can calculate the positions of stars that he can not see with his naked eye, if there were major shifts as they come up the arc of the sky, then they would know.

Even the primitive star maps and telescope I use with my kids would be useless.

A telescope can prove you see funny looking airplanes in the sky, but they can't prove that what you're seeing is a satellite.

Actually, since most satellites are not aerodynamic, lack wings, and have no visible exhaust, they can neither be rockets, nor airplanes, and the altitude is too high for balloons.

According to mainstream science it looks like the universe doesn't have positive curvature and therefore has an actual middle, rather than it being everywhere.

Explain.

Quote from: "Unimportant"

I contend there is to much atmospheric distortion for triangulation or parallax to be used for this purpose.

At avery simple level, if your assertion was valid there would be a marked difference in star positions when you change altitude or are in places with exceptionally dry air, like Death Valley.

Yep

Clarity increases, but star positions stay the same.

I think you're just saying this based on the assumption that the earth is round. I think the star positions do change.

Quote from: "Unimportant"

A telescope can prove you see funny looking airplanes in the sky, but they can't prove that what you're seeing is a satellite.

Actually, since most satellites are not aerodynamic, lack wings, and have no visible exhaust, they can neither be rockets, nor airplanes, and the altitude is too high for balloons.

How can you determine altitude from a single observation point?

How can you determine altitude from a single observation point?

Why would I be limited to a single observation point?  Or even to a single sighting.  

The paths of satellites are predictable, no matter where on the earth you are.  All of the refraction theories are limited to local observation, but the predictable locations of stars, the moon, the sun, and artificial satellites do not match what would be predicted from refraction.

And then there are meteors, I was just thinking about them and the "Dark Energy" acceleration of all observable celestial objects.  I Will search around to see if this has been explained before I start on the topic.

I think the star positions do change.

No, you don't think at all. So far, all of your "arguments" can be disproved of with a telescope. Why do you even post here when you have no clue of what you are talking about.

Get a telescope and observe star systems. Read records from other star system observations and study some astronomy books, then come back here. Please..?

What would reading Astronomy books do? Surely they will be full of lies and deceit. Records of observations will likewise be intentionally misleading.

Mapping the night sky on my own would take an awful lot of time, and then doing all the optics calculations to confirm that they don't follow the paths predicted by minimal atmospheric refraction? You are quite literally talking about lifetimes of work.

And for what, to prove to myself that the earth is really flat? To confirm what I already know? No thanks.

Get a telescope and observe star systems.

Be more specific. What would I be looking for that confirms atmospheric refraction doesn't play a role in what I see?

Quote

Get a telescope and observe star systems.

Be more specific. What would I be looking for that confirms atmospheric refraction doesn't play a role in what I see?

Degrees of arc of motion over time, as stars rise from near the horizon.  The greater the diffraction, the greater the difference between the motion of stars when low on the sky to the positions when they are high.

To be honest, most amateur telescopes won't help you, you need a sextant or a very good telescope system to plot the movements.