I'll take the bait...

So I'm a little lazy and only brushed through the search results for "night and day" but from what I've read the FET explanation just doesn't cut it for me.

You claim the Sun is like a giant spotlight shining directly downwards at any given point, but offer no insight as to how it is not a point source of light that illuminates in a 360 degree 3 dimensional system
Basically;
FET Theory:                                      Preposed Reality:

     O          <---- sun                                \  |  /
    |  |                                                      -- O --
    |  |         <-- light rays                          /  |  \
_______   <-- flat ground                  _________
                                                        /                   \  <-- curved Earth (YOU try and depict this in text format )
                                                       |                     |
                                                        \_________/
Edit: accidentally'd a science

It's part of the model. none of it can be proven, as of now. Aside from space exploration (which is discredited on these boards), how do you know that the sun isn't a spotlight?

You can't, but it complies with RE, so it's part of RET. In the same way, spotlight sun complies with FE, so it's part of FET.

It's part of the model. none of it can be proven, as of now. Aside from space exploration (which is discredited on these boards), how do you know that the sun isn't a spotlight?

Actually, it can. Surface topology of the sun can be viewed to rotate with respect to a stationary viewer using a high intensity filter on a simple household SLR camera with a high zoom lens. The movement of the topology is in line with the rotational period of the stars (1 year period) and other physical models. The observation that the earth is rotating about the sun thereby reduced to a syllogism and established the community standard that the earth is in orbit about the sun, thus placing the onus probandi as per the scientific method on a critic of this model.

<checks shinguards for sturdiness, fastens helmet, and clinches eyes shut in preparation for response>

actually, the is not a "spotlight". its "spot of light" may act like one, but it is spherical shining light in all directions. you can easily prove this by shining a pen light at 6 feet on the floor of a darkened room. you get a very narrow band of light. a 50 km "spotlight sun" in no way could illuminate a 60,000+ plus circumference earth.  Now shine a bare spherical light bulb, and there you have your answer.
Also a spot light sun as it traveled away from you would get smaller to the eye. In reality the sun never changes size and only appears to because of perspective, which is another easy experiment that I have performed numerous times.

The movement of the topology is in line with the rotational period of the stars (1 year period) and other physical models. The observation that the earth is rotating about the sun thereby reduced to a syllogism and established the community standard that the earth is in orbit about the sun, thus placing the onus probandi as per the scientific method on a critic of this model.

Could you elaborate a little as to how the topological movement is "in line with" the rotation of stars? Then explain how you can deduce from this that the earth revolves around the sun? I'd like for you to clarify a little before I go off arguing a point that you aren't making.

Could you elaborate a little as to how the topological movement is "in line with" the rotation of stars? Then explain how you can deduce from this that the earth revolves around the sun? I'd like for you to clarify a little before I go off arguing a point that you aren't making.

I'm happy you ask , and kudos to you for seeking answers!

The sun appears rather homogeneous in appearance, but with a simple pinhole filter (ie. piece of opaque material with a pinhole in it) and a UV filter placed over a run off the mill SLR camera, sun spots and other surface topologies can be observed. A common experiment for measuring the rotational period of the earth is observing the motion of these sun spots.

Most sunspots last in the order of days, but some last several weeks, and from those we are able to gleam information about the apparent rate of rotation. While the position of these sunspots is not stationary, they are known to move very slowly. We can demonstrate this assumption most easily by observing several sunspots and taking the statistical mean of their relative motion to the earth (the standard deviation is very low, suggesting a low speed of rotation with respect to the sun's surface). The conclusion of this observation is that the sun rotates as observed from the earth.

The mean of sunspot movement (the observed rotation of the sun) coincides spectacularly with the observed period of rotation of distant celestial bodies, with the eclipsing of bodies in the solar system, and with the observed seasons on our own planet.

Quote from: burdenofproof on April 02, 2013, 05:40:24 PM

Could you elaborate a little as to how the topological movement is "in line with" the rotation of stars? Then explain how you can deduce from this that the earth revolves around the sun? I'd like for you to clarify a little before I go off arguing a point that you aren't making.

I'm happy you ask , and kudos to you for seeking answers!

The sun appears rather homogeneous in appearance, but with a simple pinhole filter (ie. piece of opaque material with a pinhole in it) and a UV filter placed over a run off the mill SLR camera, sun spots and other surface topologies can be observed. A common experiment for measuring the rotational period of the earth is observing the motion of these sun spots.

Most sunspots last in the order of days, but some last several weeks, and from those we are able to gleam information about the apparent rate of rotation. While the position of these sunspots is not stationary, they are known to move very slowly. We can demonstrate this assumption most easily by observing several sunspots and taking the statistical mean of their relative motion to the earth (the standard deviation is very low, suggesting a low speed of rotation with respect to the sun's surface). The conclusion of this observation is that the sun rotates as observed from the earth.

The mean of sunspot movement (the observed rotation of the sun) coincides spectacularly with the observed period of rotation of distant celestial bodies, with the eclipsing of bodies in the solar system, and with the observed seasons on our own planet.

I understand the premise, and it makes sense, but I don't understand how you conclude that the earth must orbit the sun. Why can't a spherical sun function in FET?

I understand the premise, and it makes sense, but I don't understand how you conclude that the earth must orbit the sun. Why can't a spherical sun function in FET?

It could. The observation only concludes that the sun is rotating with respect to the earth, and that the observable universe appears also to be rotating about the earth with the same period. The inference that the earth is therefore orbiting the sun is drawn from a logic akin to Occum's Razor. It is not irrefutable based on the experiment I have suggested, but of the geocentric (or flat earth) and heliocentric models it is with the least number of further assumptions that we are able to explain observable heavenly phenomena using a heliocentric, round earth model.

It is by this or an analogous method that all proofs are made. Even simple conclusions such as looking at an apple and concluding that it is thus are based on a least-assumptions model.

My argument at this point would be that if our entire world view is preposited on a certain methodology of reasoning (that which is formalised as the scientific method), we should demand overwhelming evidence to allow ourselves to diverge from such a method. FE theory is unable to provide such evidence and should therefore be disregarded on the current quality of its merits.

Quote from: burdenofproof on April 02, 2013, 06:27:04 PM

I understand the premise, and it makes sense, but I don't understand how you conclude that the earth must orbit the sun. Why can't a spherical sun function in FET?

It could. The observation only concludes that the sun is rotating with respect to the earth, and that the observable universe appears also to be rotating about the earth with the same period. The inference that the earth is therefore orbiting the sun is drawn from a logic akin to Occum's Razor. It is not irrefutable based on the experiment I have suggested, but of the geocentric (or flat earth) and heliocentric models it is with the least number of further assumptions that we are able to explain observable heavenly phenomena using a heliocentric, round earth model.

It is by this or an analogous method that all proofs are made. Even simple conclusions such as looking at an apple and concluding that it is thus are based on a least-assumptions model.

My argument at this point would be that if our entire world view is preposited on a certain methodology of reasoning (that which is formalised as the scientific method), we should demand overwhelming evidence to allow ourselves to diverge from such a method. FE theory is unable to provide such evidence and should therefore be disregarded on the current quality of its merits.

No, it could not if you take into account all the information we have about the Sun.

First, the sunspots are seen in the same apparent place on the Sun, no matter from where on Earth you look at them. If the FE "model" were true, the sunspots would be seen in different places from different places on Earth. Alternatively, you would see the sunspots moving all over the Sun during any given day.

Second, no matter how many bendy stupidity you want to embrace, the Sun will move from a distance of about 3000 miles from you to some 12000 miles from you every day from noon til an hour or so before dusk. Either its size, or its luminosity or both would change during the afternoon. If you bend light more, then the luminosity suffers. If you make the borders of the Sun more luminous than the center, you will see this from the Earth. No matter how you try to fix this, some other problem arises.

Finally, Occam's Razor is only useful when you have two theories that predict or explain the same phenomena. In this case the the FE "theories" do not predict a single thing right, so you cannot even use Occam's Razor. Real science wins so big that comparing both "theories" is not even possible.

(YOU try and depict this in text format  )

Challenge Accepted. 


Note:  Please don't confuse me again with the infamous King You.

No, it could not if you take into account all the information we have about the Sun.

Which I wasn't doing because I was intentionally limiting the scope of the thought experiment to avoid complexity.

Real Scientist-There are two competing theories: FE and RE.

Real Scientist-There are two competing theories: FE and RE.

there are as many theories as the theorist thinks there are.

i have not as yet tallied my own total, as it would require time i could dispose of more usefully, by the development of another theory.