ENaG Chapter XIV: "Difference in Solar and Sidereal Times"

Earth Not a Globe Chapter XIV: "Difference in Solar and Sidereal Times"

Another short section, so I'll quote it in full:

It is found by observation that the stars come to the meridian about four minutes earlier every twenty-four hours than the sun, taking the solar time as the standard. This makes 120 minutes every thirty days, and twenty-four hours in the year. Hence all the constellations have passed before or in advance of the sun in that time. This is the simple fact as observed in nature, but the theory of rotundity and motion on axes and in an orbit has no place for it. Visible truth must be ignored, because this theory stands in the way, and prevents its votaries from understanding it. What is plain and consistent with every known fact, and with the direct evidence of our senses, must be interpreted or translated into theoretical language--must be called "an illusion of our senses," and affirmed to be an apparent result only; the real cause being the earth's progressive motion round the sun in what is called the ecliptic, the plane of which is assumed to be inclined to the equator 23° 28“.

This one I had trouble making sense of. Is the author saying that the observed annual motion of the stars is due to the earth orbiting the sun? or that it's an illusion? It certainly fits with an orbital model.

It just means that Rowbotham (big surprise) doesn't understand RET.

I don't see any indication that there is a misunderstanding on Rowbotham's part.

I don't see any indication that there is a misunderstanding on Rowbotham's part.

He says that it has no place in RET.  If he understood RET, he would understand why it does.

It almost sounds like he is saying this observation is just an lillusion and isn't real? 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2013, 06:44:31 AM

I don't see any indication that there is a misunderstanding on Rowbotham's part.

He says that it has no place in RET.  If he understood RET, he would understand why it does.

Rowbotham accuses RET of resting its laurels on an illusion, when the visible fact is that the stars simply move slower than the sun.

Quote from: markjo on May 14, 2013, 06:50:34 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2013, 06:44:31 AM

I don't see any indication that there is a misunderstanding on Rowbotham's part.

He says that it has no place in RET.  If he understood RET, he would understand why it does.

Rowbotham accuses RET of resting its laurels on an illusion, when the visible fact is that the stars simply move slower than the sun.

Yes, that's the visible fact, we already knew that. Round Earth, heliocentric model explains this quite nicely, and also happens to explain other visible facts like retrograde motion of planets. Funny how all these facts are easily explained in RET but not in FET, right?

Interesting how these people, who value observation above all, and consider that it's their direct experience which shows them the flat nature of Earth, can also completely dismiss direct observational evidence if it doesn't suit their world view. This is not a healthy practice if your goal is describing the world.

Interesting how these people, who value observation above all, and consider that it's their direct experience which shows them the flat nature of Earth, can also completely dismiss direct observational evidence if it doesn't suit their world view. This is not a healthy practice if your goal is describing the world.

To that point, I've also been pondering whether Rowbotham actually believed what he was writing or if, lperhaps, he was just trolling people before anyone knew what that was and is the most successful troll in existence.

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 14, 2013, 09:13:10 AM

Interesting how these people, who value observation above all, and consider that it's their direct experience which shows them the flat nature of Earth, can also completely dismiss direct observational evidence if it doesn't suit their world view. This is not a healthy practice if your goal is describing the world.

To that point, I've also been pondering whether Rowbotham actually believed what he was writing or if, perhaps, he was just trolling people before anyone knew what that was and is the most successful troll in existence.

Some of the points made in ENaG are so weak, or so obviously wrong*, or so incoherent, that I actually wonder if the whole thing wasn't really a deliberate provocation, to make people think about the shape of the earth, so that they would discover it was round themselves.

* I don't mean "obviously wrong" as in "the earth is round, so that's obviously wrong", I mean "obviously wrong" as in the author placing more weight on his own opinion than on the evidence he himself witnessed. If you are going to base your beliefs on observations, you cannot pick and choose which observations to believe. You must accept all observations, and then find a consistent way to explain them.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2013, 09:02:35 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 14, 2013, 06:50:34 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2013, 06:44:31 AM

I don't see any indication that there is a misunderstanding on Rowbotham's part.

He says that it has no place in RET.  If he understood RET, he would understand why it does.

Rowbotham accuses RET of resting its laurels on an illusion, when the visible fact is that the stars simply move slower than the sun.

Yes, that's the visible fact, we already knew that. Round Earth, heliocentric model explains this quite nicely, and also happens to explain other visible facts like retrograde motion of planets. Funny how all these facts are easily explained in RET but not in FET, right?

RET doesn't explain them "nicely". It explains them with illusions.

In RET the stars moving slower than the sun is an illusion. In FET the stars really are moving slower than the sun.

In RET the retrograde motion of the planets is an illusion. In FET the planets really are retrograding.

RET doesn't explain them "nicely". It explains them with illusions.

In RET the stars moving slower than the sun is an illusion. In FET the stars really are moving slower than the sun.

In RET the retrograde motion of the planets is an illusion. In FET the planets really are retrograding.

But RET can explain why the stars moving slower than the sun and planetary retrograde are illusions.  FET, on the other hand, can not explain why the stars move slower than the sun or why the planets retrograde.

Truth triumphs speculation.

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 14, 2013, 09:10:41 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2013, 09:02:35 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 14, 2013, 06:50:34 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2013, 06:44:31 AM

I don't see any indication that there is a misunderstanding on Rowbotham's part.

He says that it has no place in RET.  If he understood RET, he would understand why it does.

Rowbotham accuses RET of resting its laurels on an illusion, when the visible fact is that the stars simply move slower than the sun.

Yes, that's the visible fact, we already knew that. Round Earth, heliocentric model explains this quite nicely, and also happens to explain other visible facts like retrograde motion of planets. Funny how all these facts are easily explained in RET but not in FET, right?

RET doesn't explain them "nicely". It explains them with illusions.

In RET the stars moving slower than the sun is an illusion. In FET the stars really are moving slower than the sun.

In RET the retrograde motion of the planets is an illusion. In FET the planets really are retrograding.

In that case then, FET is not even a theory. It is a statement of the observed facts. There is no explanation for why the stars and planets should move the way they do. They just do.

RET, on the other hand, explains the "illusions" (if by illusions here you mean observed facts) of the retrogrades and slower star motions in terms of where everything is in space and the laws by which they move.

What you're trying to say, essentially, is that if I'm on the train and notice the train on the next track over appear to move, when in fact my train is actually moving but I didn't realize it yet, to you it really is the other train moving.

Further to markjo's point:

In RET the stars moving slower than the sun is an illusion. In FET the stars really are moving slower than the sun.

The stars appear to move relative to the sun in the same way a tree in the middle distance appears to move relative to the hills behind it when you are driving along the highway, looking to the side. In FET, there is no real explanation of how the stars are supposed to move, or the sun for that matter.

In RET the retrograde motion of the planets is an illusion. In FET the planets really are retrograding.

This one's a bit harder to think of an analogy for, but it's a bit like driving on a busy freeway, where you are going faster than some cars, and slower than others, and some turn and come back on the other side of the divider (clumsy analogy, I know, but it's the best I could think of right now). Again, FET has no real explanation of how the planets retrograde.

All in all, the round earth (real world) explanation is much tidier, and demands no special magical behaviour of celestial bodies or light therefrom (although I realise some still think of gravity as 'magical').

Truth triumphs speculation.

Has FET planetary retrograde been demonstrated in a lab?

Truth triumphs speculation.

Every time. Except when you ignore the truth...

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2013, 06:32:21 PM

Truth triumphs speculation.

Has FET planetary retrograde been demonstrated in a lab?

Planetary retrograde has been demonstrated through observational experience. The idea that the retrograde is an illusion and that the planets do not really retrograde has not been demonstrated.

Further to markjo's point:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2013, 06:13:28 PM

In RET the stars moving slower than the sun is an illusion. In FET the stars really are moving slower than the sun.

The stars appear to move relative to the sun in the same way a tree in the middle distance appears to move relative to the hills behind it when you are driving along the highway, looking to the side. In FET, there is no real explanation of how the stars are supposed to move, or the sun for that matter.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2013, 06:13:28 PM

In RET the retrograde motion of the planets is an illusion. In FET the planets really are retrograding.

This one's a bit harder to think of an analogy for, but it's a bit like driving on a busy freeway, where you are going faster than some cars, and slower than others, and some turn and come back on the other side of the divider (clumsy analogy, I know, but it's the best I could think of right now). Again, FET has no real explanation of how the planets retrograde.

All in all, the round earth (real world) explanation is much tidier, and demands no special magical behaviour of celestial bodies or light therefrom (although I realise some still think of gravity as 'magical').

Yes, I got it, an illusion did it.

Quote from: Scintific Method on May 14, 2013, 06:40:36 PM

Further to markjo's point:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2013, 06:13:28 PM

In RET the stars moving slower than the sun is an illusion. In FET the stars really are moving slower than the sun.

The stars appear to move relative to the sun in the same way a tree in the middle distance appears to move relative to the hills behind it when you are driving along the highway, looking to the side. In FET, there is no real explanation of how the stars are supposed to move, or the sun for that matter.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2013, 06:13:28 PM

In RET the retrograde motion of the planets is an illusion. In FET the planets really are retrograding.

This one's a bit harder to think of an analogy for, but it's a bit like driving on a busy freeway, where you are going faster than some cars, and slower than others, and some turn and come back on the other side of the divider (clumsy analogy, I know, but it's the best I could think of right now). Again, FET has no real explanation of how the planets retrograde.

All in all, the round earth (real world) explanation is much tidier, and demands no special magical behaviour of celestial bodies or light therefrom (although I realise some still think of gravity as 'magical').

Yes, I got it, an illusion did it.

So the sun setting on FE isn't an illusion?  Objects disappearing at the horizon isn't an illusion?  Get off your high horse because there are way more illusions with a FE than "illusions" with a RE.

Yes, I got it, an illusion did it.

And what about the illusions required to explain sunsets, obscuration by the horizon, the south celestial pole, solar and lunar eclipses, the path of the sun, moon and stars, curvature, and countless other observable phenomena, in the context of a flat earth? At least the round earth explanation is simple: the earth is round. See? Covers all those observable phenomena in four words of one syllable each. Beautiful.

So the sun setting on FE isn't an illusion?  Objects disappearing at the horizon isn't an illusion?  Get off your high horse because there are way more illusions with a FE than "illusions" with a RE.

When the sun sets we see the sun disappearing into the horizon. This is an observable fact. What we do not see is the sun going below the horizon. This is an assumption on RET's part. We are expected to believe that the observation of the sun disappearing into the horizon is an illusion, and that it is really going below it.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 14, 2013, 10:07:13 PM

So the sun setting on FE isn't an illusion?  Objects disappearing at the horizon isn't an illusion?  Get off your high horse because there are way more illusions with a FE than "illusions" with a RE.

When the sun sets we see the sun disappearing into the horizon. This is an observable fact. What we do not see is the sun going below the horizon. This is an assumption on RET's part. We are expected to believe that the observation of the sun disappearing into the horizon is an illusion, and that it is really going below it.

What you see is of no importance in this matter. In fact it can be drastically misleading.

When the sun sets we see the sun disappearing into the horizon. This is an observable fact. What we do not see is the sun going below the horizon. This is an assumption on RET's part. We are expected to believe that the observation of the sun disappearing into the horizon is an illusion, and that it is really going below it.

How would you see the sun going below the horizon? That would mean being able to see below the horizon, which would completely invalidate the meaning of the word 'horizon'.

When the sun "disappears into the horizon", it either ceases to exist, or has gone below the horizon. Which do you think is the case?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2013, 10:03:42 PM

Yes, I got it, an illusion did it.

And what about the illusions required to explain sunsets, obscuration by the horizon, the south celestial pole, solar and lunar eclipses, the path of the sun, moon and stars, curvature, and countless other observable phenomena, in the context of a flat earth? At least the round earth explanation is simple: the earth is round. See? Covers all those observable phenomena in four words of one syllable each. Beautiful.

No illusions are needed for any of those things.

The sun disappears at the horizon because it is physically disappearing from view due to opacity of the atmosphere/perspective.

Here is what Earth Not a Globe has to say on the subject:

"The question, "how is it that the earth is not at all times illuminated all over its surface, seeing that the sun is always several hundred miles above it?" may be answered as follows:--

First, if no atmosphere existed, no doubt the light of the sun would diffuse over the whole earth at once, and alternations of light and darkness could not exist.

Secondly, as the earth is covered with an atmosphere of many miles in depth, the density of which gradually increases downwards to the surface, all the rays of light except those which are vertical, as they enter the upper stratum of air are arrested in their course of diffusion, and by refraction bent downwards towards the earth; as this takes place in all directions round the sun--equally where density and other conditions are equal, and vice versā--the effect is a comparatively distinct disc of sun-light."

Indeed, if we watch the sunset on an unobstructed horizon, we see that the sun is actually disappearing into an inversion layer above the earth.






Solar eclipses are caused by the moon passing in front of the sun, as is physically observed.



Lunar eclipses are caused by a celestial body intersecting the path of light between the sun and moon, as is physically observed.



Retrograde motion occurs because the planets really are retrograding. The planets are revolving around the sun, which itself revolves around the hub of the earth. This causes a physical retrograde.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 15, 2013, 04:07:35 AM

When the sun sets we see the sun disappearing into the horizon. This is an observable fact. What we do not see is the sun going below the horizon. This is an assumption on RET's part. We are expected to believe that the observation of the sun disappearing into the horizon is an illusion, and that it is really going below it.

How would you see the sun going below the horizon? That would mean being able to see below the horizon, which would completely invalidate the meaning of the word 'horizon'.

When the sun "disappears into the horizon", it either ceases to exist, or has gone below the horizon. Which do you think is the case?

I can think of other scenarios, less plausible - but plausibility has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. for instance, quantum mechanics.

Quote from: Scintific Method on May 14, 2013, 10:50:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2013, 10:03:42 PM

Yes, I got it, an illusion did it.

And what about the illusions required to explain sunsets, obscuration by the horizon, the south celestial pole, solar and lunar eclipses, the path of the sun, moon and stars, curvature, and countless other observable phenomena, in the context of a flat earth? At least the round earth explanation is simple: the earth is round. See? Covers all those observable phenomena in four words of one syllable each. Beautiful.

No illusions are needed for any of those things.

The sun disappears at the horizon because it is physically disappearing from view due to opacity of the atmosphere/perspective.

I thought you only went by observation, what is that line that seems to obscure it by degrees, that perfectly straight line?

Here is what Earth Not a Globe has to say on the subject:

"The question, "how is it that the earth is not at all times illuminated all over its surface, seeing that the sun is always several hundred miles above it?" may be answered as follows:--

First, if no atmosphere existed, no doubt the light of the sun would diffuse over the whole earth at once, and alternations of light and darkness could not exist.

Yet, I can see feint stars...

Secondly, as the earth is covered with an atmosphere of many miles in depth, the density of which gradually increases downwards to the surface, all the rays of light except those which are vertical, as they enter the upper stratum of air are arrested in their course of diffusion, and by refraction bent downwards towards the earth; as this takes place in all directions round the sun--equally where density and other conditions are equal, and vice versā--the effect is a comparatively distinct disc of sun-light."
[/list]

see above

Indeed, if we watch the sunset on an unobstructed horizon, we see that the sun is actually disappearing into an inversion layer above the earth.

Pictures are verboten!

Solar eclipses are caused by the moon passing in front of the sun, as is physically observed.



Lunar eclipses are caused by a celestial body intersecting the path of light between the sun and moon, as is physically observed.

See above.

Retrograde motion occurs because the planets really are retrograding. The planets are revolving around the sun, which itself revolves around the hub of the earth. This causes a physical retrograde.

Yeah, okay...

If the sun was constantly above the flat plane of an Earth, it would NEVER go to the horizon, which has been beaten to death in other threads.  It would just fade away higher in the sky (though not really since the atmosphere would probably just dim it but still make it visible).  A sunset is absolutely an illusion in FE because it is not going anywhere near the horizon.  FET is full of illusions, things that have been observed to be one way, but because of bendy light or UA or whatever else, is not what it seems.  The entire Earth accelerating at 9.8 m/s is an illusion since we can't observe it moving.

Ptolemaic epicycles have never fully explained the motion of the planets. Even worse, you would still be left left with how the orbital paths are traversed; what mechanism causes their motion? 

Quote from: markjo on May 14, 2013, 06:40:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2013, 06:32:21 PM

Truth triumphs speculation.

Has FET planetary retrograde been demonstrated in a lab?

Planetary retrograde has been demonstrated through observational experience.

But has it been reproduced in a lab?  After all, stellar fusion has been observed in our sun but has hot been reproduced in a lab, therefore you claim that stellar fusion is an unexplained mystery.  I'm simply applying the same burden to planetary retrograde as you apply to stellar fusion.

The idea that the retrograde is an illusion and that the planets do not really retrograde has not been demonstrated.

Actually, it has: