Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated

  • 102 Replies
  • 18900 Views
Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #60 on: July 11, 2013, 10:00:56 AM »
It simply shows that the bottom edge of the Sun gets smaller as it gets further away.
Are you saying that the bottom edge of the sun is farther away than the top edge or middle of the sun?
Of course not. Only the far edge is farther away from the viewer.
Which edge of the sun is the farther edge?  ???
You should not be using words like "farther" if you don't understand the meaning of the word.

You should probably not turn a post about science into a discussion of grammar when you understand neither.

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/further-versus-farther

It's a clear sign that you have lost your argument when you start in with grammar and spelling (unless your original argument was already about grammar and spelling, I guess).
You further fail to see how your grasp of "farther" is farther than I can go into further. What I was saying is that if you are asking for the meaning of "farther" than you must not understand it. "Farther" refers to a point that in reference to another point is a greater distance from another reference point.

Ergo, the "farther" end of the sun is the edge of the disc that is not as close to the observer as the "closer" side. I thought this was pretty obvious to anyone who understood the meaning of the word. I may not be as articulate as Noah Webster, so perhaps you should consult a dictionary if you are still confused and need further explanation.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #61 on: July 11, 2013, 10:18:13 AM »
Right, you stick to grammar then. Let me know when you want to get back to discussing science.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #62 on: July 11, 2013, 02:00:04 PM »
I am bypassing the 3 pages of arguing and addressing the OP.

In order to measure apparent size you need to measure the angular size.  To do this you need a focal point: that is a way to have all the light reaching your recording medium pass through the a single zero dimensional point in space.  Your hole is a 2-dimensional circle, and without a lens does not direct the light passing through it through a focal point.  As there is nothing in your experiment which uses a focal point, I submit that it is not possible to measure the apparent size of the sun using your method.

What you can do, however, is measure the fuzziness of a shadow cast by the sun.  Shadow fuzziness is caused by a light source not being a single point, and noticeable having angular size.  By measuring the extent of fuzziness and the distance from the object casting the shadow to the edge of the shadow where the fuzziness is being measured, plus some other things, which I can illustrate later, you can calculate the angular size of the sun.  So, instead of cutting a hole in paper, use the edge of the paper ;).  The shape of light shining through the hole, unfortunately, is caused by the shape of the hole, and has nothing to do with the shape of the sun.

I think I see what you're saying. Thanks for the explanation. My original post encouraged people to try it for themselves. I'm still getting the Sun distortion results, however, and I doubt it has to do with "Sun fuzziness".

The fuzziness shouldn't affect your results other than to make it difficult to get a precise measurement.  I don't know what is causing your distortion.  Even if the sun were a flat line, the light you should see cast through your hole should still be the shape of the hole, and not the sun. 

It should be noted though, that even without any fancy measuring devices, the sun can definitely be seen to not behave like a flat disc.  To demonstrate, you can hold a coin horizontally just above where you see the horizon.  this is exactly the kind of elliptical shape the sun would have if it were a disc.

Here's a site with a simple demonstration of how perspective affects a disc:http://www.artyfactory.com/perspective_drawing/perspective_6.html

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #63 on: July 11, 2013, 03:51:11 PM »
Obviously doctored. Where on Earth would you be that the Sun is green?

It is called a filter, some fancy technology you apparently hold no knowledge of. You barely can do a real experiment. Instead you believe in fairy tales.
Hello!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #64 on: July 11, 2013, 05:01:49 PM »
Ergo, the "farther" end of the sun is the edge of the disc that is not as close to the observer as the "closer" side. I thought this was pretty obvious to anyone who understood the meaning of the word. I may not be as articulate as Noah Webster, so perhaps you should consult a dictionary if you are still confused and need further explanation.
According to the FE Wiki, the sun is about 32 miles in diameter and 3000 miles high.  Please explain how perspective can cause the bottom edge of the sun to disappear before the top edge when there is no significant difference in distance from any given edge of the sun to any other edge relative to the sun's distance from an observer at sunset.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #65 on: July 12, 2013, 01:20:40 AM »
Right, you stick to grammar then. Let me know when you want to get back to discussing science.

It's spelled GRAMMER, yet another RE failure.

?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • The Militant Skeptic
Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #66 on: July 12, 2013, 01:43:00 AM »
Right, you stick to grammar then. Let me know when you want to get back to discussing science.

It's spelled GRAMMER, yet another RE failure.

Nowhere on Earth has the proper spelling of grammar as grammer.  And that's not relevant to the shape of the earth regardless, nor is it even a grammatical error, because grammar and spelling are distinct parts of language.  It's your thread, but at least try to be somewhat consistent with your off topic statements, why don't you?
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #67 on: July 12, 2013, 03:10:44 AM »
It's spelled GRAMMER, yet another RE failure.

As accurate as anything else you have ever posted muggsy!  ;D
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #68 on: July 12, 2013, 04:11:06 AM »
Right, you stick to grammar then. Let me know when you want to get back to discussing science.

It's spelled GRAMMER, yet another RE failure.

Nowhere on Earth has the proper spelling of grammar as grammer.  And that's not relevant to the shape of the earth regardless, nor is it even a grammatical error, because grammar and spelling are distinct parts of language.  It's your thread, but at least try to be somewhat consistent with your off topic statements, why don't you?

I think you'll find...

?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • The Militant Skeptic
Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #69 on: July 12, 2013, 04:17:30 AM »
Right, you stick to grammar then. Let me know when you want to get back to discussing science.

It's spelled GRAMMER, yet another RE failure.

Nowhere on Earth has the proper spelling of grammar as grammer.  And that's not relevant to the shape of the earth regardless, nor is it even a grammatical error, because grammar and spelling are distinct parts of language.  It's your thread, but at least try to be somewhat consistent with your off topic statements, why don't you?

I think you'll find...

Check the bottom, the word used in this context, being grammer, is said to be a common misspelling of grammar.
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #70 on: July 12, 2013, 07:27:43 AM »
Right, you stick to grammar then. Let me know when you want to get back to discussing science.

It's spelled GRAMMER, yet another RE failure.

Nowhere on Earth has the proper spelling of grammar as grammer.  And that's not relevant to the shape of the earth regardless, nor is it even a grammatical error, because grammar and spelling are distinct parts of language.  It's your thread, but at least try to be somewhat consistent with your off topic statements, why don't you?

I think you'll find...

Oh my gosh...and English is your mother tongue? It says
GRAMMER A common misspelling of grammar due to the vowel reduction in English.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar

Grammar
AR!

No wonder you believe the earth is flat.
Hello!

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #71 on: July 12, 2013, 07:31:58 AM »
No wonder you believe the earth is flat.

I never said the earth was flat.  ???

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #72 on: July 12, 2013, 09:02:27 AM »
Right, you stick to grammar then. Let me know when you want to get back to discussing science.

It's spelled GRAMMER, yet another RE failure.

Get out of here muggsyBOGUS1, you faker! Where's the real muggsybogues1!? Did you really think no one was going to notice? I'm on to you! >o<

muggsybogues1: Registered January 11, 2013 (WTF, my birthday? Huh.)

muggsybogus1: Registered July 11, 2013 (Double WTF, my ex-wife's birthday? Come on!)

« Last Edit: July 12, 2013, 09:05:38 AM by Shmeggley »
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #73 on: July 12, 2013, 09:05:55 AM »
No wonder you believe the earth is flat.

I never said the earth was flat.  ???

Don't try to be smarty-pants.
You did, by stating that it was "another RE failure".
 
Hello!

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #74 on: July 12, 2013, 09:12:36 AM »
Right, you stick to grammar then. Let me know when you want to get back to discussing science.

It's spelled GRAMMER, yet another RE failure.

Get out of here muggsyBOGUS1, you faker! Where's the real muggsybogues1!? Did you really think no one was going to notice? I'm on to you! >o<

muggsybogues1: Registered January 11, 2013 (WTF, my birthday? Huh.)

muggsybogus1: Registered July 11, 2013 (Double WTF, my ex-wife's birthday? Come on!)

He has been successful in completely derailing my serious thread. No matter. I will post the results of my refined experiment in another thread.

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #75 on: July 12, 2013, 12:33:27 PM »
So it sounds like what you did was trace the outline of the circle of light on the cardboard for marking made by the Sun shining through the cardboard with the hole in it. That's interesting, but that doesn't measure the angular diameter of the Sun as far as I can tell.

Well, of course not. The goal was to measure the relative diameter of the Sun. I wasn't sure it would work, but it obviously did.

I'm not sure you are even getting the relative diameter from that setup. I don't see how that circle of light is proportional to the apparent size of the Sun.

I must agree with you. The sun emits light in all directions 360 degrees of light.  FET has a complete new sun, if it was the same sun all earth would be lit up. Kinda like a light in your living room, you got light everywhere. In FET the sun is like a flashlight/spot light so the sides are covered. So that would mean FET has either a magic sun, or it's a disc with sides I guess.  There's no way from what I understood, from this experiment, that it would calculate anything at all, except maybe indicate the time of day. If he's experiment was right does that mean sun clocks are in the conspiracy also?

For anyone interested in really calculating the earths distance to let say the sun. Look into Kepler's third law. With math you can calculate the distance of lets say Venus, then you can measure the distance of the sun and then use the sun to measure farther objects and so on. See that's another thing with FET modern math is part of the conspiracy also, as a programmer I could confirm the math does indeed work, if not then no one would be playing video games.

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #76 on: July 12, 2013, 12:52:54 PM »
So it sounds like what you did was trace the outline of the circle of light on the cardboard for marking made by the Sun shining through the cardboard with the hole in it. That's interesting, but that doesn't measure the angular diameter of the Sun as far as I can tell.

Well, of course not. The goal was to measure the relative diameter of the Sun. I wasn't sure it would work, but it obviously did.

I'm not sure you are even getting the relative diameter from that setup. I don't see how that circle of light is proportional to the apparent size of the Sun.

I must agree with you. The sun emits light in all directions 360 degrees of light.  FET has a complete new sun, if it was the same sun all earth would be lit up. Kinda like a light in your living room, you got light everywhere. In FET the sun is like a flashlight/spot light so the sides are covered. So that would mean FET has either a magic sun, or it's a disc with sides I guess.  There's no way from what I understood, from this experiment, that it would calculate anything at all, except maybe indicate the time of day. If he's experiment was right does that mean sun clocks are in the conspiracy also?

For anyone interested in really calculating the earths distance to let say the sun. Look into Kepler's third law. With math you can calculate the distance of lets say Venus, then you can measure the distance of the sun and then use the sun to measure farther objects and so on. See that's another thing with FET modern math is part of the conspiracy also, as a programmer I could confirm the math does indeed work, if not then no one would be playing video games.
The problem is not the math, it's that you think that all of these things are millions of miles away. Faulty assumptions lead to faulty conclusions.

Let's assume that two cats were put in a box unobserved for a year. When you open the box, you discover two litters of kittens. Therefore you come assume that the two cats put into the box were male and female. But what if one or both of the cats are pregnant when they are put in? What if kittens found their way into the box when you weren't looking? Then your conclusion is wrong.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #77 on: July 12, 2013, 01:10:39 PM »
Kepler's law does not assume that celestial bodies are millions of kms from Earth.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #78 on: July 12, 2013, 01:15:13 PM »
Kepler's law does not assume that celestial bodies are millions of kms from Earth.

According to Wikipedia, law 1 is "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci." That is clearly not the case as noted by simple observation.

Faulty premise->Faulty Conclusion.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #79 on: July 12, 2013, 01:19:00 PM »
Kepler's law does not assume that celestial bodies are millions of kms from Earth.

According to Wikipedia, law 1 is "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci." That is clearly not the case as noted by simple observation.

Faulty premise->Faulty Conclusion.

Which simple observation is that?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #80 on: July 15, 2013, 08:05:53 AM »
Kepler's law does not assume that celestial bodies are millions of kms from Earth.

According to Wikipedia, law 1 is "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci." That is clearly not the case as noted by simple observation.

Faulty premise->Faulty Conclusion.

Which simple observation is that?
You can see planets in the sky at night nowhere near the Sun.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #81 on: July 15, 2013, 08:28:04 AM »
Kepler's law does not assume that celestial bodies are millions of kms from Earth.

According to Wikipedia, law 1 is "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci." That is clearly not the case as noted by simple observation.

Faulty premise->Faulty Conclusion.

Which simple observation is that?
You can see planets in the sky at night nowhere near the Sun.
You can only see Mercury or Venus near sunrise or sunset, which would be expected with the current solar system model.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #82 on: July 15, 2013, 08:52:05 AM »
Kepler's law does not assume that celestial bodies are millions of kms from Earth.

According to Wikipedia, law 1 is "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci." That is clearly not the case as noted by simple observation.

Faulty premise->Faulty Conclusion.

Which simple observation is that?
You can see planets in the sky at night nowhere near the Sun.
You can only see Mercury or Venus near sunrise or sunset, which would be expected with the current solar system model.
I don't think you're saying that you see Venus near the sunrise every morning and sunset every night. If you're saying that, then you are misidentifying the planet. Or you are merely repeating something someone else has said (incorrectly, I'm assuming) instead of observing it for yourself. I have found that the Round Earth Indoctrinated very rarely will perform their own experiments to determine the accuracy of the statements passed down from their ancestors.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #83 on: July 15, 2013, 08:55:19 AM »
Kepler's law does not assume that celestial bodies are millions of kms from Earth.

According to Wikipedia, law 1 is "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci." That is clearly not the case as noted by simple observation.

Faulty premise->Faulty Conclusion.

Which simple observation is that?
You can see planets in the sky at night nowhere near the Sun.
You can only see Mercury or Venus near sunrise or sunset, which would be expected with the current solar system model.
I don't think you're saying that you see Venus near the sunrise every morning and sunset every night. If you're saying that, then you are misidentifying the planet. Or you are merely repeating something someone else has said (incorrectly, I'm assuming) instead of observing it for yourself. I have found that the Round Earth Indoctrinated very rarely will perform their own experiments to determine the accuracy of the statements passed down from their ancestors.

So full of cuckoo

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #84 on: July 15, 2013, 09:10:37 AM »
Kepler's law does not assume that celestial bodies are millions of kms from Earth.

According to Wikipedia, law 1 is "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci." That is clearly not the case as noted by simple observation.

Faulty premise->Faulty Conclusion.

Which simple observation is that?
You can see planets in the sky at night nowhere near the Sun.
You can only see Mercury or Venus near sunrise or sunset, which would be expected with the current solar system model.
I don't think you're saying that you see Venus near the sunrise every morning and sunset every night. If you're saying that, then you are misidentifying the planet. Or you are merely repeating something someone else has said (incorrectly, I'm assuming) instead of observing it for yourself. I have found that the Round Earth Indoctrinated very rarely will perform their own experiments to determine the accuracy of the statements passed down from their ancestors.

You are right that he is not saying, "you see Venus near the sunrise every morning and sunset every night."

He clearly said, "You can only see Mercury or Venus near sunrise or sunset, which would be expected with the current solar system model."

There is a distinct difference between the two statements.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5479
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #85 on: July 15, 2013, 09:11:38 AM »
Kepler's law does not assume that celestial bodies are millions of kms from Earth.

According to Wikipedia, law 1 is "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci." That is clearly not the case as noted by simple observation.

Faulty premise->Faulty Conclusion.

Which simple observation is that?
You can see planets in the sky at night nowhere near the Sun.
You can only see Mercury or Venus near sunrise or sunset, which would be expected with the current solar system model.
I don't think you're saying that you see Venus near the sunrise every morning and sunset every night. If you're saying that, then you are misidentifying the planet. Or you are merely repeating something someone else has said (incorrectly, I'm assuming) instead of observing it for yourself. I have found that the Round Earth Indoctrinated very rarely will perform their own experiments to determine the accuracy of the statements passed down from their ancestors.
Did I say that you could see them every morning or evening?  I only said that those are the times when they are visible.  Stop trying to dismiss the argument by inventing a misconception that isn't there.  Why would only Mercury and Venus be visible only near sunrise or sunset, while other planets can be seen at varying times of the night?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #86 on: July 15, 2013, 09:15:34 AM »
Kepler's law does not assume that celestial bodies are millions of kms from Earth.

According to Wikipedia, law 1 is "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci." That is clearly not the case as noted by simple observation.

Faulty premise->Faulty Conclusion.

Which simple observation is that?
You can see planets in the sky at night nowhere near the Sun.
You can only see Mercury or Venus near sunrise or sunset, which would be expected with the current solar system model.
I don't think you're saying that you see Venus near the sunrise every morning and sunset every night. If you're saying that, then you are misidentifying the planet. Or you are merely repeating something someone else has said (incorrectly, I'm assuming) instead of observing it for yourself. I have found that the Round Earth Indoctrinated very rarely will perform their own experiments to determine the accuracy of the statements passed down from their ancestors.

You are right that he is not saying, "you see Venus near the sunrise every morning and sunset every night."

He clearly said, "You can only see Mercury or Venus near sunrise or sunset, which would be expected with the current solar system model."

There is a distinct difference between the two statements.

However, if he is saying what you are suggesting he is saying, then is quite clear that the planets do not orbit the Sun any more than the Moon or stars do. This is why Kepler's Law cannot mathematically determine anything--is is a farce.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #87 on: July 15, 2013, 09:25:03 AM »
Kepler's law does not assume that celestial bodies are millions of kms from Earth.

According to Wikipedia, law 1 is "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci." That is clearly not the case as noted by simple observation.

Faulty premise->Faulty Conclusion.

Which simple observation is that?
You can see planets in the sky at night nowhere near the Sun.
You can only see Mercury or Venus near sunrise or sunset, which would be expected with the current solar system model.
I don't think you're saying that you see Venus near the sunrise every morning and sunset every night. If you're saying that, then you are misidentifying the planet. Or you are merely repeating something someone else has said (incorrectly, I'm assuming) instead of observing it for yourself. I have found that the Round Earth Indoctrinated very rarely will perform their own experiments to determine the accuracy of the statements passed down from their ancestors.

You are right that he is not saying, "you see Venus near the sunrise every morning and sunset every night."

He clearly said, "You can only see Mercury or Venus near sunrise or sunset, which would be expected with the current solar system model."

There is a distinct difference between the two statements.

However, if he is saying what you are suggesting he is saying, then is quite clear that the planets do not orbit the Sun any more than the Moon or stars do. This is why Kepler's Law cannot mathematically determine anything--is is a farce.

Why would Venus and Mercury only being visible during sunrise or sunset be impossible on a heliocentric view?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #88 on: July 15, 2013, 09:30:35 AM »
Kepler's law does not assume that celestial bodies are millions of kms from Earth.

According to Wikipedia, law 1 is "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci." That is clearly not the case as noted by simple observation.

Faulty premise->Faulty Conclusion.

Which simple observation is that?
You can see planets in the sky at night nowhere near the Sun.
You can only see Mercury or Venus near sunrise or sunset, which would be expected with the current solar system model.
I don't think you're saying that you see Venus near the sunrise every morning and sunset every night. If you're saying that, then you are misidentifying the planet. Or you are merely repeating something someone else has said (incorrectly, I'm assuming) instead of observing it for yourself. I have found that the Round Earth Indoctrinated very rarely will perform their own experiments to determine the accuracy of the statements passed down from their ancestors.

You are right that he is not saying, "you see Venus near the sunrise every morning and sunset every night."

He clearly said, "You can only see Mercury or Venus near sunrise or sunset, which would be expected with the current solar system model."

There is a distinct difference between the two statements.

However, if he is saying what you are suggesting he is saying, then is quite clear that the planets do not orbit the Sun any more than the Moon or stars do. This is why Kepler's Law cannot mathematically determine anything--is is a farce.

Why would Venus and Mercury only being visible during sunrise or sunset be impossible on a heliocentric view?

I already established that he was working with a faulty premise by assuming the Earth is not flat. He claimed that Kepler's Laws would prove how far the planets were using Kepler's Laws, and I have successfully proven that they can not.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #89 on: July 15, 2013, 09:34:22 AM »
Kepler's law does not assume that celestial bodies are millions of kms from Earth.

According to Wikipedia, law 1 is "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci." That is clearly not the case as noted by simple observation.

Faulty premise->Faulty Conclusion.

Which simple observation is that?
You can see planets in the sky at night nowhere near the Sun.
You can only see Mercury or Venus near sunrise or sunset, which would be expected with the current solar system model.
I don't think you're saying that you see Venus near the sunrise every morning and sunset every night. If you're saying that, then you are misidentifying the planet. Or you are merely repeating something someone else has said (incorrectly, I'm assuming) instead of observing it for yourself. I have found that the Round Earth Indoctrinated very rarely will perform their own experiments to determine the accuracy of the statements passed down from their ancestors.

You are right that he is not saying, "you see Venus near the sunrise every morning and sunset every night."

He clearly said, "You can only see Mercury or Venus near sunrise or sunset, which would be expected with the current solar system model."

There is a distinct difference between the two statements.

However, if he is saying what you are suggesting he is saying, then is quite clear that the planets do not orbit the Sun any more than the Moon or stars do. This is why Kepler's Law cannot mathematically determine anything--is is a farce.

Why would Venus and Mercury only being visible during sunrise or sunset be impossible on a heliocentric view?

I already established that he was working with a faulty premise by assuming the Earth is not flat. He claimed that Kepler's Laws would prove how far the planets were using Kepler's Laws, and I have successfully proven that they can not.

Can you please answer my question?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.