Explain

They are looking to the wrong direction. They need compass. Don't ask me anything, because I have decided you are trolling us.

You are free to decide whatever you want of course but let me assure you I wouldn't waste my time 'trolling' anyone. If anyone is doing the trolling it is the other way round. And I don't need to ask you anything because you've already told me everything you need to for me to understand your position with all this.

I appreciate you have your beliefs and equally your own reasons for having those beliefs. But simply believing in something doesn't make it true. It seems to be a common trait among flat Earthers that anyone who doesn't share their beliefs are accused of 'trolling'.  However whether you agree with what I have said or not (you don't obviously but others here do) is quite immaterial to me.

Quote

They are looking to the wrong direction. They need compass. Don't ask me anything, because I have decided you are trolling us.

You are free to decide whatever you want of course but let me assure you I wouldn't waste my time 'trolling' anyone. If anyone is doing the trolling it is the other way round. And I don't need to ask you anything because you've already told me everything you need to for me to understand your position with all this.

I appreciate you have your beliefs and equally your own reasons for having those beliefs. But simply believing in something doesn't make it true. Equally as well, someone not sharing your beliefs doesn't make them a troll.  Whether you believe what I have said (and others have back me up on it) or not really is quite immaterial to me.

You sound like a bigot

Remember where you are. A Flat Earth Society.

Do you walk into a church in the middle of a sermon and tell the Priest "Just because you believe it, doesn't make it true' and then promote your own opposing ideology to everyone?

You have questions and that's fair enough. But if you have no interest in listening to the answers and insist that members here are trolls then how do you think that looks? Of course people will think you are a troll

There are definitely a few around here who possibly could be described as bigots, but what I have said here is not simply an opinion it is reality.  Wise maintains that the stars rotate around the SCP in an anticlockwise direction.  I am telling him they don't.  Anyone living in the southern hemisphere can see that for themselves.

How is telling someone about reality being a bigot?

Remember this discussion is under 'Flat Earth Debate'.  I thought a debate had two sides to it.  One for and one against.  That means people involved in a debate are allowed to hold different opinions doesn't it?

I would never say anything that I wasn't confident is the truth and if people say things on here which I agree with and think are true then I will say so.  As I have numerous times already here.  However if anyone says anything I don't agree with or know is not true then I believe I am entitled to say so.

There are definitely a few around here who possibly could be described as bigots, but what I have said here is not simply an opinion it is reality.  Wise maintains that the stars rotate around the SCP in an anticlockwise direction.  I am telling him they don't.  Anyone living in the southern hemisphere can see that for themselves.

How is telling someone about reality being a bigot?

Walk into a church, interupt the priest, explain your reality and that everyones faith is wrong and see what they think of you

It is the same as here

You come to a flat earth society. Flat earthers did not go to your society. Therefore YOU are the guest and should be showing courtesy. Imagine someone coming over to your house and telling you off for what you believe and how you do things. You would think that person is being ridiculous

Well guess what. In this place, you are that person!

So clearly you don't want to actually discuss or debate anything here then is that right?  At least nothing that doesn't conform to your beliefs.  What is the point of debating anything then if everyone around here shares the same point of view? 

They are looking to the wrong direction. They need compass. Don't ask me anything, because I have decided you are trolling us.

You mean they are looking in the correct direction, towards the south celestial pole, clearly observing the existence of the south celestial pole and the starts appearing to rotate around it.

But of course, you can't deal with reality so need to resort to pathetic dismissals.
Why did you decide that he is trolling? Because he wont accept your nonsense and instead sticks to reality?

You sound like a bigot

No, that would be "wise", deciding that just because someone doesn't accept his baseless claims that they are a troll.

Remember where you are.

A debate forum, for debating if Earth is flat or not.
Not a church, not an echo chamber, not a forum for preaching.

You have questions and that's fair enough. But if you have no interest in listening to the answers

What answers?
I am yet to see anyone here explain how 2 celestial poles work on a FE.

What is the point of debating anything then if everyone around here shares the same point of view?

What is the point of coming here to debate when you clearly have made up your mind before your first post and will not change it regardless

Debates are fine. It's when people come here to shill, not listen and belittle others when it all turns to crap

wie asked you to do something. Something for yourself. You then responded with 'I already know and you're wrong' sort of answer. So what is the point of continuing if that is your attitude?

I live in an area labelled as part of the 'southern hemisphere' and have not witnessed 'anticlockwise movement' of stars.

What is the point of coming here to debate when you clearly have made up your mind before your first post and will not change it regardless

You don't have to make up your mind about what direction the sky rotates around the south celestial pole. You just have to look and watch it.  It is not an opinion it is an easily observed fact! 

Quote from: Solarwind on February 04, 2020, 11:57:55 PM

Quote

They are looking to the wrong direction. They need compass. Don't ask me anything, because I have decided you are trolling us.

You are free to decide whatever you want of course but let me assure you I wouldn't waste my time 'trolling' anyone. If anyone is doing the trolling it is the other way round. And I don't need to ask you anything because you've already told me everything you need to for me to understand your position with all this.

I appreciate you have your beliefs and equally your own reasons for having those beliefs. But simply believing in something doesn't make it true. Equally as well, someone not sharing your beliefs doesn't make them a troll.  Whether you believe what I have said (and others have back me up on it) or not really is quite immaterial to me.

You sound like a bigot

Remember where you are. A Flat Earth Society.

Do you walk into a church in the middle of a sermon and tell the Priest "Just because you believe it, doesn't make it true' and then promote your own opposing ideology to everyone?

You have questions and that's fair enough. But if you have no interest in listening to the answers and insist that members here are trolls then how do you think that looks? Of course people will think you are a troll

Look, this is a debate about the star movement in the Southern Hemisphere.
It is not a "church in the middle of a sermon"  and in a debate what one does is to "promote your own opposing ideology to everyone" - that is what a debate is for.

So please read this, Mr Shifter!

Flat Earth Debate - Rules & Guidelines
Welcome to Flat Earth Debate. This forum is for debates on Flat Earth Theory.
[i]Opposing viewpoints are, as always, welcomed -- but please keep the discussion serious and intelligent.[/i]

Trolling and low-content posting will not be tolerated and this forum will be moderated quite strictly.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Before you make a post in here, ask yourself, "am I really adding anything to the conversation?" If the answer is "no", you probably shouldn't make the post. Likewise, keep to the point at hand. If you wish to discuss a tangential subject, you should create a new thread rather than pulling the current thread off its original topic.

I've done my best to add to that conversation by posting videos illustrating the differences between the Northern Hemisphere and Northern Hemisphere night sky.

Wise simply denies what I and others know is true and even John Davis points out that wise is wrong with this post:

As a flat earther who has been to Australia I can also confirm they rotate oppositely. You argue our point so poorly, it only lends credence to the fact you are an agent of Musk.

Yet you come along and try to stop any debate!
Please either post something relevant to the point raised in the OP or butt out.

Then I note that you write:

I live in an area labelled as part of the 'southern hemisphere' and have not witnessed 'anticlockwise movement' of stars.

So you too disagree with wise as well with your "I live in an area labelled as part of the 'southern hemisphere' and have not witnessed 'anticlockwise movement' of stars."

So it seems that none of you, Solarwind, John Davis nor I support wise's claim so why all the fuss?

Quote

What is the point of coming here to debate when you clearly have made up your mind before your first post and will not change it regardless

You don't have to make up your mind about what direction the sky rotates around the south celestial pole. You just have to look and watch it.  It is not an opinion it is an easily observed fact!

It is only a so called fact if you have backed yourself into accepting certain conditions about the nature of your universe. You could be missing vital data

For example, the 'shadow experiment' could be explained by a Flat Earth if the sun were only a few thousand miles away and 32 miles across. The math works out the same

Just because you come to an answer with one set of conditions doesn't make your answer the reality. If the conditions you have are wrong, then your answer will forever be wrong.

Regarding the star movement can you be sure that all your conditions are full and complete in their entirety? Keep in mind your own science says there is 96% of energy and matter invisible and unknown to us. How can you assert any answers, including the motion of the stars if your missing so much information about the very universe you occupy?

Quote from: Shifter on February 05, 2020, 12:08:31 AM

Quote from: Solarwind on February 04, 2020, 11:57:55 PM

Quote

They are looking to the wrong direction. They need compass. Don't ask me anything, because I have decided you are trolling us.

You are free to decide whatever you want of course but let me assure you I wouldn't waste my time 'trolling' anyone. If anyone is doing the trolling it is the other way round. And I don't need to ask you anything because you've already told me everything you need to for me to understand your position with all this.

I appreciate you have your beliefs and equally your own reasons for having those beliefs. But simply believing in something doesn't make it true. Equally as well, someone not sharing your beliefs doesn't make them a troll.  Whether you believe what I have said (and others have back me up on it) or not really is quite immaterial to me.

You sound like a bigot

Remember where you are. A Flat Earth Society.

Do you walk into a church in the middle of a sermon and tell the Priest "Just because you believe it, doesn't make it true' and then promote your own opposing ideology to everyone?

You have questions and that's fair enough. But if you have no interest in listening to the answers and insist that members here are trolls then how do you think that looks? Of course people will think you are a troll

Look, this is a debate about the star movement in the Southern Hemisphere.
It is not a "church in the middle of a sermon"  and in a debate what one does is to "promote your own opposing ideology to everyone" - that is what a debate is for.

So please read this, Mr Shifter!

Quote from: Daniel

Flat Earth Debate - Rules & Guidelines
Welcome to Flat Earth Debate. This forum is for debates on Flat Earth Theory.
[i]Opposing viewpoints are, as always, welcomed -- but please keep the discussion serious and intelligent.[/i]

Trolling and low-content posting will not be tolerated and this forum will be moderated quite strictly.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Before you make a post in here, ask yourself, "am I really adding anything to the conversation?" If the answer is "no", you probably shouldn't make the post. Likewise, keep to the point at hand. If you wish to discuss a tangential subject, you should create a new thread rather than pulling the current thread off its original topic.

I've done my best to add to that conversation by posting videos illustrating the differences between the Northern Hemisphere and Northern Hemisphere night sky.

Wise simply denies what I and others know is true and even John Davis points out that wise is wrong with this post:

Quote from: John Davis on January 31, 2020, 08:44:53 AM

As a flat earther who has been to Australia I can also confirm they rotate oppositely. You argue our point so poorly, it only lends credence to the fact you are an agent of Musk.

Yet you come along and try to stop any debate!
Please either post something relevant to the point raised in the OP or butt out.

Then I note that you write:

Quote from: Shifter on February 05, 2020, 02:08:17 AM

I live in an area labelled as part of the 'southern hemisphere' and have not witnessed 'anticlockwise movement' of stars.

So you too disagree with wise as well with your "I live in an area labelled as part of the 'southern hemisphere' and have not witnessed 'anticlockwise movement' of stars."

So it seems that none of you, Solarwind, John Davis nor I support wise's claim so why all the fuss?

What's wrong with asking for common courtesy? Even in debates you can still be courteous.

And keep the rules handy next time you want to debate and argue in the 'Flat Earth General section' hmmm?

What is the point of coming here to debate when you clearly have made up your mind before your first post and will not change it regardless

And who says they have?

All they have indicated they had made their mind up about was the verifiable fact that the stars appear to rotate about the north and south celestial poles, in opposite directions.

The debate part is if FE can explain it.

It is only a so called fact if you have backed yourself into accepting certain conditions about the nature of your universe. You could be missing vital data

How?
It is observable, directly.

The question is how does a FE explain it (if it can). Whereas wise just wants to pretend it doesn't happen.

Let's remind ourselves of what Wise posted near the start of this discussion:

Did you observe it by your own eyes or are you repeating the globalist liars who want you think so? Because they are not. In both hemicirle it rotates counter-clockwise. Likewise sun. It always come from east, whereever you live in the earth, it rotates counter-clockwise. If you take the earth in the ground all of them rotates clockwise when you look at it bird's eye view.

He states in both 'hemicirle' the sky rotates counter-clockwise.  For the northern 'hemicirle' that is true.  Not so for the southern 'hemicirle'.  Evidence: direct observation.

Likewise the Sun. Wise says 'It always come from the east, wherever you live in the earth.'  Correct.  In the northern hemisphere it rises in the east, swings around to the south and sets in the west.  That means it is moving around the sky in a clockwise direction.  In the southern hemisphere is rises in the east and swings around to the north and sets in the west.  That means it is moving around the sky in an anti-clockwise direction.   Evidence:  direct observation.

Imagine you lived at the equator.  You would see all the stars rise in the east and set in the west. If you face north that means east is on your right, west is on your left.  The sky then is rotating anticlockwise.  Now face south so that east is on your left and west is on your right.  So now given that the stars rise in the east they must by definition be rotating clockwise.

For the umpteenth time this is NOT my opinion it is an OBSERVABLE FACT.

Quote from: Shifter on February 05, 2020, 02:36:20 AM

It is only a so called fact if you have backed yourself into accepting certain conditions about the nature of your universe. You could be missing vital data

How?
It is observable, directly.

Are you suggesting that your eyes are enough to observe all of the reality? Just because you observe something doesn't make it true

Smoke and mirrors

(not literally of course) but the point is that there could be unseen or even unknowable explanations for things we observe

Are you suggesting that your eyes are enough to observe all of the reality? Just because you observe something doesn't make it true.

So that means then from your way of thinking you don't agree with the often made claim among flat Earth believers that the best proof of the Earth being flat is that the horizon looks flat. Just because you observe the horizon to be flat doesn't mean that it is actually flat.

Quote

Are you suggesting that your eyes are enough to observe all of the reality? Just because you observe something doesn't make it true.

So that means then from your way of thinking you don't agree with the often made claim among flat Earth believers that the best proof of the Earth being flat is that the horizon looks flat. Just because you observe the horizon to be flat doesn't mean that it is actually flat.

I question everything.

Regarding the star movement can you be sure that all your conditions are full and complete in their entirety?

What conditions?
You look to the South on a clear night and watch the stars continuously, have a look each hour or so or set up a camera to take a time-lapses as numerous have done!

The pointer stars (Alpha and Beta Centauri) and the Southern Cross (Crux) are very easy to identify.

Is that so difficult to understand and do?

So why do you pretend that it takes the knowledge of the ages just to look at the night sky!

And John Davis has stated that he has personally observed the clockwise rotation of the stars from Australia as I have.
Are you going to claim that you and Wise are the only ones that know "THE TRUTH"?

Quote from: JackBlack on February 05, 2020, 02:42:13 AM

It is observable, directly.

Are you suggesting that your eyes are enough to observe all of the reality?

Nobody is claiming "that your eyes are enough to observe all of the reality" - nothing more than how the stars appear to move in the Southern Sky!
That is far from "all of the reality"!

Quote from: Shifter on February 05, 2020, 02:55:18 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 05, 2020, 02:42:13 AM

It is observable, directly.

Are you suggesting that your eyes are enough to observe all of the reality?

Nobody is claiming "that your eyes are enough to observe all of the reality" - nothing more than how the stars appear to move in the Southern Sky!
That is far from "all of the reality"!

When you see an image, the image is upside down when it hits the back of your eye. Your brain corrects this.

How do you know that there isn't some fundamental working in our universe that alters our own perception of what we see when we look out there?

My point is not trying to say you are wrong or right here. Just that you cant possibly know for sure. And I mean with 100% certainty. To reach that level of certainty requires you know everything about everything. Not even the ASI has got that far yet. It's close though

If you want to be absolutely accurate about it then the movement of the stars we observe in the skies is actually the movement of the Earth in the opposite direction. But because there is no absolute fixed point in the sky to reference that movement against, and we have no direct 'feeling' of the Earth moving it appears to us that the sky is moving around a stationary Earth.

I understand that in days gone by our beliefs have been based purely on what our senses tell us. But as time goes on our ability to gather information and data about the way nature works has improved and expanded.  So now we know (but Shifter would still say believe) that the Earth is tilted by 23.5, rotates on its axis and orbits the Sun. 

We can demonstrate why these motions can explain everything from why night and day happens, why the Sun varies in altitude the sky from season to season, why the stars rotate as they do across the sky and why the seasonal changes we experience around the planet are least at the equator and greatest at the poles.

RE explains all these easily.  FE can't explain any of them without making up a whole load of alternative claims for which there is no evidence to support.

You could spend your life questioning 'everything' but where would that get you?  There comes a point where you have to accept something as being true or correct until such a time arrives when you can show otherwise.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 05, 2020, 03:17:58 AM

Quote from: Shifter on February 05, 2020, 02:55:18 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 05, 2020, 02:42:13 AM

It is observable, directly.

Are you suggesting that your eyes are enough to observe all of the reality?

Nobody is claiming "that your eyes are enough to observe all of the reality" - nothing more than how the stars appear to move in the Southern Sky!
That is far from "all of the reality"!

When you see an image, the image is upside down when it hits the back of your eye. Your brain corrects this.

If it's irrelevant, why mention it!

How do you know that there isn't some fundamental working in our universe that alters our own perception of what we see when we look out there?

That too is irrelevant because all I asked was " nothing more than how the stars appear to move in the Southern Sky! "

My point is not trying to say you are wrong or right here. Just that you cant possibly know for sure. And I mean with 100% certainty. To reach that level of certainty requires you know everything about everything. Not even the ASI has got that far yet. It's close though

All that is, again, quite irrelevant because all I've asked is "nothing more than how the stars appear to move in the Southern Sky!"!

Do I have to say it again?
In the Northern Hemisphere the stars appear to rotate anti-clockwise about the North Celestial Pole (near Polaris) but
in the Southern Hemisphere the stars appear to rotate clockwise about the South Celestial Pole (near the faint star Sigma Octantis).

Nobody is claiming that the stars do rotate about these Poles, just that they appear to.

Here a little extra! A beautiful video of the Aurora Australis from within a few tens of metres of the Geographic South Pole:

SOUTH POLE | NIGHT IN ANTARCTICA by Timestorm Films - video originally by Robert Schwarz.

Are you suggesting that your eyes are enough to observe all of the reality?

Are you capable of what is being said rather than setting up a completely pathetic strawman?

I am not saying there is only one explanation.
I am saying that this is what is observed.
The stars appear to rotate around the south celestial pole.

This doesn't mean I need to observe all of reality.

I'm not saying that must be because Earth is round and that is the only possible solution.
I'm not even saying that the stars actually rotate around the pole, just that that is how it appears.

So now you guys are walking back your assertions using language 'It only appears. Nice little qualifier that admits you dont actually know for sure whats going on but 'hey it looks that way'.

So regardless of what you observe, you must understand that the reality could be very different. Until you know everything, you should not be asserting anything with a 100% confidence

Rabinoz is right. The stars only appear to rotate around the sky because we have no fixed reference point in sky that tells us it is actually the Earth rotating. Same principle as when you are sitting in a stationary train and the train next to you starts moving, you can't tell to begin with which train is actually moving.

That doesn't change the fact that Wise was wrong when he asserted that the stars appear to us to rotate anticlockwise around the south celestial pole.  They don't.

So regardless of what you observe, you must understand that the reality could be very different. Until you know everything, you should not be asserting anything with a 100% confidence

So on this basis what makes you believe the Earth is flat?  You can't say its because you know it is because according to you we don't know anything with 100% confidence. 

To save you the trouble of asking me, I consider that there is far more directly observable evidence that tips the balance in favour of the RE model over any FE model I have read about.  So that is my choice as much as to support the FE idea is your choice.

I would agree in principle that we cannot say of many things in science that we 'know' them to be true. However our 'knowledge' is based on our experience and there must be a point where we say 'to the best of our knowledge' this or that is true. We are intelligent enough to how the difference between reality and perception.  So when I say the stars rotate around the sky I know that the sky is not really moving around the Earth, as does every other amateur astronomer. It just seems like it to us. It is 'common knowledge' so we don't need to explicitly mention it when we talk about the rotation of the sky.

Scientists are willing to modify what they believe to be true based on their own research and investigations as evidence to that effect presents itself. In other words we come to conclusions based on the observations and experiments we do.  We don't start off with a conclusion first and then try to make whatever observations we make fit that conclusion.

Scientists are willing to modify what they believe to be true based on their own research and investigations as evidence to that effect presents itself. In other words we come to conclusions based on the observations and experiments we do.  We don't start off with a conclusion first and then try to make whatever observations we make fit that conclusion.

I'm not really sure this is true. In fact, there are several studies that suggest it is not. One that comes to mind is Scientists behaving badly. Its brought up a lot that falsification never really happens, but rather ad hoc hypotheses are instead inserted into the dialogue to keep the 'normal' part of Kuhnian science chugging along.

So now you guys are walking back your assertions using language 'It only appears.

No, that was quite apparent from the start.
Almost no RE these days actually thinks the stars rotate about the celestial poles, and instead that they just appear to.
But regardless, it was clearly talking about an observation, right from the start.

"Wise", instead of trying to explain how such an observation would happen on a FE, instead rejected it outright, pretending that it would never happen.

Quote

Scientists are willing to modify what they believe to be true based on their own research and investigations as evidence to that effect presents itself. In other words we come to conclusions based on the observations and experiments we do.  We don't start off with a conclusion first and then try to make whatever observations we make fit that conclusion.

I'm not really sure this is true. In fact, there are several studies that suggest it is not.

So we still believe in Newtonian relativity, the luminiferous aether, phlogiston, that there are only 5 elements and so on?

The available evidence shows that scientists have changed what they believe to be true.

One that comes to mind is Scientists behaving badly. Its brought up a lot that falsification never really happens, but rather ad hoc hypotheses are instead inserted into the dialogue to keep the 'normal' part of Kuhnian science chugging along.

No, it doesn't.
In fact it sure seems to indicate the exact opposite, that less than 1% falsify or "cook" data and less than 10% fail to present data that contradicts their previous research.
It makes no mention at all about any ad-hoc hypotheses or the like.

A lot of the "behaving badly" points they focus on have no bearing on the truth of the results, and instead is other types of bad behaviour. For example, having relationships with students, subjects or clients; using another person's idea without their permission or giving credit; unauthorised use of confidential information, publishing the same data in multiple publications and inappropriately assigning authorship.

Some others are more borderline, such as withholding methodology in papers or proposals, where the only issue that really raises is the ability for others to replicate the results. But that can also be done to make it so no one can easily produce more results and publish them before you get a chance to which is more based upon needing funding and how competitive it is with such little funding.

I'm not really sure this is true. In fact, there are several studies that suggest it is not.

So that would be why sciene recognised over time some limitations of Newtonian gravity which were subsequently refined by applying Einsteins GTR is it?  Einstein moved away from considering gravity as a simple force and instead considered it as a curvature woven into the fabric of space-time.  GTR predicted the amount of apparent displacement of stars around the Sun, and measurements subsequently made during solar eclipses found those predictions to be correct.

So now you guys are walking back your assertions using language 'It only appears.

No, Mr Shifter, I, at least am not "walking back . . . assertions using language 'It only appears" because that is all I've claimed all along.
Now read what your Master, Mr Wise wrote in here:

Quote from: Xe on January 30, 2020, 05:46:46 AM

On the north pole, they rotate counter-clockwise. Meanwhile, on the south pole, clockwise. How is this?

Did you observe it by your own eyes or are you repeating the globalist liars who want you think so? Because they are not. In both hemicircle it rotates counter-clockwise . . . . .  wherever you live in the earth, it rotates counter-clockwise

Nice little qualifier that admits you dont actually know for sure whats going on but 'hey it looks that way'.

No, Mr Shifter, it is not any "nice little qualifier that admits you don't actually know for sure what's going on".
I did not present what, to the best of my knowledge, really happens because that is irrelevant to this thread and would lead to unnecessary debate.

So regardless of what you observe, you must understand that the reality could be very different. Until you know everything, you should not be asserting anything with a 100% confidence

All we are asserting is what has been observed countless times including John Davis and me.

And that has been made clear numerous times, but YOU seem unable to comprehend it, the issue is what the direction that the stars appear to rotate when looking North or looking South.

And the simple facts are:
In the Northern Hemisphere, looking North, the stars appear to rotate anti-clockwise about a single point, the North Celestial Pole but
in the Southern Hemisphere, looking South the stars appear to rotate clockwise about a single point, the South Celestial Pole.
This is what wise claimed was incorrect but wise is wrong!

Now the whole point of the thread is that the stars do appear to rotate in the opposite directions, as described, and neither wise nor you seem able to provide an explanation as to how this is possible on a flat Earth with the North Pole at the centre.

Quote from: Shifter on February 05, 2020, 04:36:16 AM

So now you guys are walking back your assertions using language 'It only appears.

No, that was quite apparent from the start.
Almost no RE these days actually thinks the stars rotate about the celestial poles, and instead that they just appear to.
But regardless, it was clearly talking about an observation, right from the start.

"Wise", instead of trying to explain how such an observation would happen on a FE, instead rejected it outright, pretending that it would never happen.

Quote from: John Davis on February 05, 2020, 10:19:18 AM

Quote

Scientists are willing to modify what they believe to be true based on their own research and investigations as evidence to that effect presents itself. In other words we come to conclusions based on the observations and experiments we do.  We don't start off with a conclusion first and then try to make whatever observations we make fit that conclusion.

I'm not really sure this is true. In fact, there are several studies that suggest it is not.

So we still believe in Newtonian relativity, the luminiferous aether, phlogiston, that there are only 5 elements and so on?

I realize now I'm having a duel with a man with no sword.

Yes Newtonian relativity is a prerequisite and subset of Einstein's.

I realize now I'm having a duel with a man with no sword.

Yes Newtonian relativity is a prerequisite and subset of Einstein's.

You mean, you realise that you brought a sword to the duel while I brought a rifle?

Newtonian relativity, under Einstein's relativity is an approximation for low velocity conditions.
If we just had Newtonian relativity and didn't admit that was wrong, we wouldn't have Einstein's
We wouldn't have the formula for velocity as (v+u)/(1+v*u/c^2).

Can you actually address what has been said?
Or just dismissal and thinly veiled insults?