Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated

  • 102 Replies
  • 8760 Views
Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #90 on: July 15, 2013, 09:35:47 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?

Your question is off-topic and should be asked in another thread.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #91 on: July 15, 2013, 09:45:53 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.
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?

Your question is off-topic and should be asked in another thread.

He's dodging the question because he can't think of why it would be. It's so obvious but his brain can't work it out.

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #92 on: July 15, 2013, 11:03:12 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.

This doesn't defeat that at all. Take the following image, which I randomly found via google for demonstration purposes, as I was too lazy to draw a diagram myself.



This reflects the heliocentric model fairly well other than obvious scale issues, and there's a lot of unnecessary information. However, the important bit is Neptune. Imagine you're standing on Earth during the night. Then Neptune's clearly visible.

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #93 on: July 15, 2013, 11:20:38 AM »
He's dodging the question because he can't think of why it would be. It's so obvious but his brain can't work it out.
No, I'm pointing out that a nonsense theory cannot prove a nonsense "fact" based on a nonsense premise. Allow me to describe some basic predicate logic:

Predicate: If a is true, then b is true
a is not true
b is not necessarily true

Predicate: If the orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci, then you can determine the distance using Kepler's Laws
a: The orbit of every planet is not an ellipse with the Sun
b: You cannot necessarily determine the distance using Kepler's Laws

What I have pointed out is that the planets plainly do not travel around the Sun, and the only way to make them appear to do so (outside of the bounds of proper logic) is to use the Doctrine of the Round Earth. In other words, you cannot prove Round Earth Doctrine (i.e., the distance of the planets because of using Kepler's Laws) because Kepler's Laws assume Round Earth Doctrine to begin with. This is simple logic, and I'm surprised it's taking so many posts to clarify.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #94 on: July 15, 2013, 12:37:45 PM »
He's dodging the question because he can't think of why it would be. It's so obvious but his brain can't work it out.
No, I'm pointing out that a nonsense theory cannot prove a nonsense "fact" based on a nonsense premise. Allow me to describe some basic predicate logic:

Predicate: If a is true, then b is true
a is not true
b is not necessarily true

Predicate: If the orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci, then you can determine the distance using Kepler's Laws
a: The orbit of every planet is not an ellipse with the Sun
b: You cannot necessarily determine the distance using Kepler's Laws

What I have pointed out is that the planets plainly do not travel around the Sun, and the only way to make them appear to do so (outside of the bounds of proper logic) is to use the Doctrine of the Round Earth. In other words, you cannot prove Round Earth Doctrine (i.e., the distance of the planets because of using Kepler's Laws) because Kepler's Laws assume Round Earth Doctrine to begin with. This is simple logic, and I'm surprised it's taking so many posts to clarify.

What is the "proper logic" that tells you that the planets in our solar system do not revolve around the sun?

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #95 on: July 15, 2013, 12:49:18 PM »
He's dodging the question because he can't think of why it would be. It's so obvious but his brain can't work it out.
No, I'm pointing out that a nonsense theory cannot prove a nonsense "fact" based on a nonsense premise. Allow me to describe some basic predicate logic:

Predicate: If a is true, then b is true
a is not true
b is not necessarily true

Predicate: If the orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci, then you can determine the distance using Kepler's Laws
a: The orbit of every planet is not an ellipse with the Sun
b: You cannot necessarily determine the distance using Kepler's Laws

What I have pointed out is that the planets plainly do not travel around the Sun, and the only way to make them appear to do so (outside of the bounds of proper logic) is to use the Doctrine of the Round Earth. In other words, you cannot prove Round Earth Doctrine (i.e., the distance of the planets because of using Kepler's Laws) because Kepler's Laws assume Round Earth Doctrine to begin with. This is simple logic, and I'm surprised it's taking so many posts to clarify.

What is the "proper logic" that tells you that the planets in our solar system do not revolve around the sun?

That is a conclusion, not logic. You can use logic to reach a conclusion which has been, can be, and is verified experimentally. You cannot use logic using premises to prove premises.

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #96 on: July 15, 2013, 12:55:44 PM »
What is the "proper logic" that tells you that the planets in our solar system do not revolve around the sun?

That is a conclusion, not logic. You can use logic to reach a conclusion which has been, can be, and is verified experimentally. You cannot use logic using premises to prove premises.

Okay, then could you tell us how you reached the conclusion that planets in our solar system do not revolve around the sun?

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #97 on: July 15, 2013, 01:03:06 PM »
What is the "proper logic" that tells you that the planets in our solar system do not revolve around the sun?

That is a conclusion, not logic. You can use logic to reach a conclusion which has been, can be, and is verified experimentally. You cannot use logic using premises to prove premises.

Okay, then could you tell us how you reached the conclusion that planets in our solar system do not revolve around the sun?
You'll find one of the supporting experiments in the first post on page 1 of this thread.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #98 on: July 15, 2013, 01:06:08 PM »
He's dodging the question because he can't think of why it would be. It's so obvious but his brain can't work it out.
No, I'm pointing out that a nonsense theory cannot prove a nonsense "fact" based on a nonsense premise. Allow me to describe some basic predicate logic:

Predicate: If a is true, then b is true
a is not true
b is not necessarily true

Predicate: If the orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci, then you can determine the distance using Kepler's Laws
a: The orbit of every planet is not an ellipse with the Sun
b: You cannot necessarily determine the distance using Kepler's Laws

What I have pointed out is that the planets plainly do not travel around the Sun, and the only way to make them appear to do so (outside of the bounds of proper logic) is to use the Doctrine of the Round Earth. In other words, you cannot prove Round Earth Doctrine (i.e., the distance of the planets because of using Kepler's Laws) because Kepler's Laws assume Round Earth Doctrine to begin with. This is simple logic, and I'm surprised it's taking so many posts to clarify.

What is the "proper logic" that tells you that the planets in our solar system do not revolve around the sun?

That is a conclusion, not logic. You can use logic to reach a conclusion which has been, can be, and is verified experimentally. You cannot use logic using premises to prove premises.

Why is this sentence hard for you? I said "What is the proper logic that tells you...."

That is to say what logic did you use (What is the proper logic) that gave you the conclusion (that tells you)....

In any case, just answer the question and forget about semantics.

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #99 on: July 15, 2013, 01:08:04 PM »
Okay, then could you tell us how you reached the conclusion that planets in our solar system do not revolve around the sun?
You'll find one of the supporting experiments in the first post on page 1 of this thread.

No, I found the description of a poorly-done experiment (see below for reasons) involving the sun. I saw nothing about any planets.

So please, can you tell us how you reached the conclusion that planets in our solar system do not revolve around the sun?

Your experiment could have erred in any of these ways:
  • The block was closer to the screen at twilight
  • The block wasn't oriented perpendicular to the rays of light
  • Your outlines weren't drawn in the same reference (outside of fuzzy edge of shadow vs inside of fuzzy edge)
  • Your ruler in measuring wasn't aligned with the diameter of the image
  • Your observation of the markings of the ruler weren't from the same perspective during both measurements (parallax)
« Last Edit: July 15, 2013, 01:10:57 PM by Alex Tomasovich »

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #100 on: July 15, 2013, 01:12:08 PM »
Okay, then could you tell us how you reached the conclusion that planets in our solar system do not revolve around the sun?
You'll find one of the supporting experiments in the first post on page 1 of this thread.

No, I found the description of a poorly-done[1] experiment involving the sun. I saw nothing about any planets.

So please, can you tell us how you reached the conclusion that planets in our solar system do not revolve around the sun?

1 - Your experiment could have erred in any of these ways:
  • The block was closer to the screen at twilight
  • The block wasn't oriented perpendicular to the rays of light
  • Your outlines weren't drawn in the same reference (outside of fuzzy edge of shadow vs inside of fuzzy edge)
  • Your ruler in measuring wasn't aligned with the diameter of the image
  • Your observation of the markings of the ruler weren't from the same perspective during both measurements (parallax)

So, in other words, you've just announced your intent to take this thread off-topic. It's quite simple to create a new thread addressing your own personal topics that you would like to discuss.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #101 on: July 15, 2013, 01:16:48 PM »
Okay, then could you tell us how you reached the conclusion that planets in our solar system do not revolve around the sun?
You'll find one of the supporting experiments in the first post on page 1 of this thread.

No, I found the description of a poorly-done[1] experiment involving the sun. I saw nothing about any planets.

So please, can you tell us how you reached the conclusion that planets in our solar system do not revolve around the sun?

1 - Your experiment could have erred in any of these ways:
  • The block was closer to the screen at twilight
  • The block wasn't oriented perpendicular to the rays of light
  • Your outlines weren't drawn in the same reference (outside of fuzzy edge of shadow vs inside of fuzzy edge)
  • Your ruler in measuring wasn't aligned with the diameter of the image
  • Your observation of the markings of the ruler weren't from the same perspective during both measurements (parallax)

So, in other words, you've just announced your intent to take this thread off-topic. It's quite simple to create a new thread addressing your own personal topics that you would like to discuss.

What no!?

Your experiment is about the earth being a consistent distance away from the sun instead of an ellipse. Later on in the thread, you claimed that planets don't revolve around the Sun (a totally different claim) but you mention that your earlier experiment confirms that the planets don't revolve around the Sun. Then Tomasovich shows you the experiment you were talking about and shows it indeed is not a claim (let alone conclusive evidence) that the planets don't revolve around the Sun. You derailed the thread by making new even more extraordinary claims.

Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« Reply #102 on: July 15, 2013, 01:25:51 PM »
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.
What I have pointed out is that the planets plainly do not travel around the Sun
Okay, then could you tell us how you reached the conclusion that planets in our solar system do not revolve around the sun?
You'll find one of the supporting experiments in the first post on page 1 of this thread.
No, I found the description of a poorly-done experiment (see below for reasons) involving the sun. I saw nothing about any planets.

So please, can you tell us how you reached the conclusion that planets in our solar system do not revolve around the sun?

Your experiment could have erred in any of these ways:
  • The block was closer to the screen at twilight
  • The block wasn't oriented perpendicular to the rays of light
  • Your outlines weren't drawn in the same reference (outside of fuzzy edge of shadow vs inside of fuzzy edge)
  • Your ruler in measuring wasn't aligned with the diameter of the image
  • Your observation of the markings of the ruler weren't from the same perspective during both measurements (parallax)

If you consider my pointing out where your experiment could have failed and then asking you to explain claims you've already made as a derailment, then you should stop derailing your own thread with these claims.

If you want to claim that you've proved that planets don't revolve around the sun, by all means, make another thread, and I'll argue the point there. If you want this thread to stay on-topic, than please address the concerns, now stated at least 3 times on this thread, that I have with your experiment.