How do flat earthers explain the observation of Jupiter's moons by amateurs?

With nothing but an amateur telescope, you can observe Jupiter's four moons, and you can see them orbiting Jupiter.  If gravity doesn't exist, what force causes these bodies to orbit Jupiter?

With nothing but an amateur telescope, you can observe Jupiter's four moons, and you can see them orbiting Jupiter.  If gravity doesn't exist, what force causes these bodies to orbit Jupiter?

Don't forget to add that they disappear behind Jupiter, transit across it as well as cast shadows on it.

If gravity doesn't exist, what force causes these bodies to orbit Jupiter?

Probably aether.

They are just small lights 6,459 yards above the earth...do you know nothing at all?

Gallileo nearly got called a heretic for looking at them, so I suggest you don't do so either!!

They are just small lights 6,459 yards above the earth...do you know nothing at all?

Gallileo nearly got called a heretic for looking at them, so I suggest you don't do so either!!

He did get called a heretic for looking at them. Think!

Quote from: sevenhills on March 14, 2015, 04:59:46 PM

They are just small lights 6,459 yards above the earth...do you know nothing at all?

Gallileo nearly got called a heretic for looking at them, so I suggest you don't do so either!!

Her did get called a heretic for looking at them. Think!

I did thunk
he had the foresight to name them after the Medici brothers..always look after powerful people

With nothing but an amateur telescope, you can observe Jupiter's four moons, and you can see them orbiting Jupiter.  If gravity doesn't exist, what force causes these bodies to orbit Jupiter?

Interesting question indeed, what does cause Jupiter's four [sic] moons to orbit?  However, since you cannot even explain how gravity works, this argument is akin to saying, "If an invisible lasso doesn't explain the orbit of Jupiter's moon, then what does?"

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on March 14, 2015, 03:56:21 PM

With nothing but an amateur telescope, you can observe Jupiter's four moons, and you can see them orbiting Jupiter.  If gravity doesn't exist, what force causes these bodies to orbit Jupiter?

Interesting question indeed, what does cause Jupiter's four [sic] moons to orbit?  However, since you cannot even explain how gravity works, this argument is akin to saying, "If an invisible lasso doesn't explain the orbit of Jupiter's moon, then what does?"

Would it not be more accurate to say that we do know very well how gravity works - what we don't know is what causes gravity.

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on March 14, 2015, 03:56:21 PM

With nothing but an amateur telescope, you can observe Jupiter's four moons, and you can see them orbiting Jupiter.  If gravity doesn't exist, what force causes these bodies to orbit Jupiter?

Interesting question indeed, what does cause Jupiter's four [sic] moons to orbit?  However, since you cannot even explain how gravity works, this argument is akin to saying, "If an invisible lasso doesn't explain the orbit of Jupiter's moon, then what does?"

So, Pongo, are you admitting that flat earthers can't explain what causes Jupiter's moons to orbit it?

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on March 14, 2015, 03:56:21 PM

With nothing but an amateur telescope, you can observe Jupiter's four moons, and you can see them orbiting Jupiter.  If gravity doesn't exist, what force causes these bodies to orbit Jupiter?

Interesting question indeed, what does cause Jupiter's four [sic] moons to orbit?  However, since you cannot even explain how gravity works, this argument is akin to saying, "If an invisible lasso doesn't explain the orbit of Jupiter's moon, then what does?"

Nonsense. Medieval arabs knew about the properties of light; the fact that they had no idea about what light actually was doesn't mean they were wrong.
Your ridiculous flat earth theory has no explanation for how a flat earth formed, so by using your logic, it can't exist.

The simple fact is that - unlike ALL FE ideas - gravity doesn't need to be "back-created" to match reality. We didn't determine how gravity should behave by watching every single phenomenon out there and then concocting a theory that fitted them all. No, it was deduced by looking at a few phenomena, and then later on when new observations were made, it was realised they fitted with what gravity already predicted should happen (the exception being galactic rotation, hence the search for Dark Matter/MOND). Thus confirming the theory. There is no part of FET that has passed that test, but many aspects of conventional science have.

However, since you cannot even explain how gravity works, this argument is akin to saying, "If an invisible lasso doesn't explain the orbit of Jupiter's moon, then what does?"

I can explain how gravity works, that's easy:



If you want to know why gravity works then we don't know that, but that isn't proof that it doesn't exist because cells still existed before the microscope was invented and also magnetism has no explanation either and it clearly exists.  Just because we don't know why something happens doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.  STOP USING THAT AS PROOF AGAINST GRAVITY!!!

Actually Mike now we pretty much do. That is what the search for the Higgs Boson was all about.

Actually Mike now we pretty much do. That is what the search for the Higgs Boson was all about.

Sorry, that's wrong. That's not at all what the Higgs-Boson is about. "We" are just at the unification of Electromagnetic and Weak Force. Contemporary physics is faaaaaaaaaar from understanding what causes gravity

Quote from: DonaldC on March 16, 2015, 12:17:43 AM

Actually Mike now we pretty much do. That is what the search for the Higgs Boson was all about.

Sorry, that's wrong. That's not at all what the Higgs-Boson is about. "We" are just at the unification of Electromagnetic and Weak Force. Contemporary physics is faaaaaaaaaar from understanding what causes gravity

Actually Einstein proposed nice model.

Quote from: DonaldC on March 16, 2015, 12:17:43 AM

Actually Mike now we pretty much do. That is what the search for the Higgs Boson was all about.

Sorry, that's wrong. That's not at all what the Higgs-Boson is about. "We" are just at the unification of Electromagnetic and Weak Force. Contemporary physics is faaaaaaaaaar from understanding what causes gravity

Well, the higs is proof of the higs field, the higs field causes mass, and mass is proportional to gravity so it might lead to an explenation for Gravity.

Quote from: FalseProphet on March 16, 2015, 01:01:42 AM

Quote from: DonaldC on March 16, 2015, 12:17:43 AM

Actually Mike now we pretty much do. That is what the search for the Higgs Boson was all about.

Sorry, that's wrong. That's not at all what the Higgs-Boson is about. "We" are just at the unification of Electromagnetic and Weak Force. Contemporary physics is faaaaaaaaaar from understanding what causes gravity

Actually Einstein proposed nice model.

You mean  General Relativity? Yes, but there's a problem. Einstein tried to reduce physics to geometry. It was a great try, but he failed (he himself said so). It worked with gravity, but not with the other forces. On the other hand there is still no quantum theory of gravity, while there is one for weak, strong and electromagnetic force. So there is a kind of gap between them two, relativity and quantum physics. The Harmonization of them, and therefor of gravity and the other 3 forces is the big unsolved problem of modern physics. The problem goes very deep. It is connected with our disability to divide numbers by 0.

FalseP one of the problems is that QM is a linear theory whilst GR is non-linear. GR does describe the curvature of space-time geometrically dealing with rather large masses. QM does deal with the terribly small; subatomic particles usually. The first attack when you are trying to solve a GR problem is to see if you can turn it into a Special Relativity problem, wherein you are back to linear solutions. Non-linear problems are notoriously difficult.

String theory, loops theory and a few others are the contenders for the fusion of GR and QM.

We may never know however what causes gravity or the other three forces. Allow me to relay something Richard Feyman said which is true and in a way somewhat sad for scientists. Paraphrasing, he stated that eventually there will be some basic laws, perhaps the four we have now, perhaps something deeper. When you reach that point, the most basic rules of the universe, ultimately all we will be able to say is, these are the laws and they work the way they do. We will not be able to say why.

FalseP one of the problems is that QM is a linear theory whilst GR is non-linear.

Sure you mean GR is the linear one and QM the non-linear. And what's now about the Higgs-Boson? How does it help us to understand gravity?

PS: You can call me Prophy.

Simple. Jupiter is a sphere and it has moons. It is moving upward along with the Earth, so it is always in the same position for observation. Not many FE'ers deny the existence of other planets. You'd know this if you paid attention.

Simple. Jupiter is a sphere and it has moons. It is moving upward along with the Earth, so it is always in the same position for observation. Not many FE'ers deny the existence of other planets. You'd know this if you paid attention.

But don't you think it's funny how Jupiter's Moon's follow Kepler's laws of planetary motion?  Why would the aether do that?

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 16, 2015, 09:56:43 AM

Simple. Jupiter is a sphere and it has moons. It is moving upward along with the Earth, so it is always in the same position for observation. Not many FE'ers deny the existence of other planets. You'd know this if you paid attention.

But don't you think it's funny how Jupiter's Moon's follow Kepler's laws of planetary motion?  Why would the aether do that?

Jupiter is in a galactic lane that is influenced by gravity, hence the sphere. Aether just pushes Jupiter upward.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 16, 2015, 10:00:54 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 16, 2015, 09:56:43 AM

Simple. Jupiter is a sphere and it has moons. It is moving upward along with the Earth, so it is always in the same position for observation. Not many FE'ers deny the existence of other planets. You'd know this if you paid attention.

But don't you think it's funny how Jupiter's Moon's follow Kepler's laws of planetary motion?  Why would the aether do that?

Jupiter is in a galactic lane that is influenced by gravity, hence the sphere. Aether just pushes Jupiter upward.

Why do you think Earth is not influenced by gravity and pushed into a sphere?

Why do you think Earth is not influenced by gravity and pushed into a sphere?

Because it's clearly not a sphere. Several experiments have shown this.

Simple. Jupiter is a sphere and it has moons. It is moving upward along with the Earth, so it is always in the same position for observation. Not many FE'ers deny the existence of other planets. You'd know this if you paid attention.

Except that it isn't always in the same position.

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 16, 2015, 09:56:43 AM

Simple. Jupiter is a sphere and it has moons. It is moving upward along with the Earth, so it is always in the same position for observation. Not many FE'ers deny the existence of other planets. You'd know this if you paid attention.

Except that it isn't always in the same position.

Gravity and aether working on the same celestial body causes considerable stellar drift.


Or in this case, planetary drift.

Because it's clearly not a sphere. Several experiments have shown this.

Zero have proved this.  If you wanted the exact number.  So clearly not flat.  Many experiments have been done and have showed a Round Earth, but these are part of the conspiracy or incorrect math of course.
One experiment has given results for both, by reinterpreting the results by ancient Greeks.  That's the only thing that even closely qualifies as possible evidence really.  Everything else ever done has not been able to be reproduced by anyone else other than a Flat Earth supporter or is seriously flawed. 
To prove a flat earth you must have the following:
A massive conspiracy
Throw out any scientific data that disproves your claims
Put in a magical substance that is an explain all for anything that disproves FET.
Little or no logic
Little or no spacial reasoning

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 16, 2015, 10:07:44 AM

Because it's clearly not a sphere. Several experiments have shown this.

Zero have proved this.  If you wanted the exact number.  So clearly not flat.  Many experiments have been done and have showed a Round Earth, but these are part of the conspiracy or incorrect math of course.
One experiment has given results for both, by reinterpreting the results by ancient Greeks.  That's the only thing that even closely qualifies as possible evidence really.  Everything else ever done has not been able to be reproduced by anyone else other than a Flat Earth supporter or is seriously flawed. 
To prove a flat earth you must have the following:
A massive conspiracy
Throw out any scientific data that disproves your claims
Put in a magical substance that is an explain all for anything that disproves FET.
Little or no logic
Little or no spacial reasoning

The bedford level experiement, Kansas, and Pongo's CN Tower problem shows that the Earth is flat. Basic trig also proves that the Earth is flat.

What else do you want from us?

Math does not show that the Earth is flat.  The video linked in this thread proves it.

Math does not show that the Earth is flat.

Yes it does. Trig proves that the Sun is about 3000 miles away. This is in our wiki.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 16, 2015, 10:33:57 AM

Math does not show that the Earth is flat.

Yes it does. Trig proves that the Sun is about 3000 miles away. This is in our wiki.

Like I said before, If you assume a flat Earth it shows that, if you assume the Earth is Spherical it shows the circumference of the Earth. 
Also the infailable Rowbotham says the Sun is 700 miles above the Earth, yet that does not match with your trig.