Reopening the case against Galileo

[The Cadet]

Have you personally been to other planets to witness firsthand those alleged seasons? I have not.

We have fairly sophisticated tools to help us observe these things. While we cannot personally examine them, the datasets from NASA's satellites and the various other international space agencies are all publicly available.

How is it meaningless to have a man standing at the north pole, spinning in a circle at thousands of km per hour?

Which spin are you talking about? The spin of the earth is, at the north pole, virtually zero. It's at its maximum at the equator, but even there, it barely amounts to half a percent of the gravitational force.

Speaking as one with decades of experience in the Comp-sci field myself, which extends to this day, it is indeed an accurate description of how files work. If you disagree, please explain how it is not an accurate description.

We're not talking about levels of reality. We're talking about degrees of abstraction. The file's icon is not the same thing as the file, and the fact that we observe the file as a file, and not a collection of electrons, has to do with how we observe reality, not how reality fundamentally functions.

I updated my post you quoted with the following: "I see no substantial change in Venus' size with the naked eye. Viewing it with a telescope is akin to viewing the 'file' on a different level of reality, as in my example above."

Functionally, it makes very little difference. It's nothing like the difference between the visual abstraction of a solid structure vs. its atomic structure, or the difference between electrons moving through a switchboard and the finished process on the computer screen. None of which are differences with any meaning beyond our perception.

If we take a microscope and examine, say, a human being, to various levels of magnification, we will see how the human being's component parts act in different ways on different levels of reality. The whole body, on one level ... organs, on another level ... molecules, on a further level ... DNA, on a deeper level .... atoms, quantum particles, and so on, each level obeying different laws of reality.

Atoms, molecules, cells, organs, humans, and planets obey the same laws of reality. I have no idea where you got the idea that they interact in fundamentally different ways. They will react differently to different mechanics, but that's to be expected. Gravitational force is a function of mass; the electromagnetic force is not.

I'm not saying that telescopes or microscopes cannot be trusted. I am merely stating that they are objects that assist us in looking into a different level of reality, a level which may demonstrate distinctly different laws of reality than the naked eye.

Why would you assume that the laws are so different there? Particularly given the evidence we have that the laws function exactly as expected there. The laws of reality do not change simply because our magnification changes! This is a nonsensical idea. Wouldn't this mean that if we look at a scene through binoculars and then again without binoculars, something should change about it other than how we perceive it?

 

[chilehed]

He demonstrated to the degree science allows.

Not true. He had a model with predictive value, nothing more. The accepted models also had predicitve value, and at the time there wasn't sufficent evidence to abandon them.

Remember, you have the benefit of several hundred years of hindsight.

Can these flat-earthers be serious?? No one with any sort of educatuon thought the earth was flat back in Bellarmine's day. Hell, the Greeks knew better. All you have to do is look at the freakin' moon to know that the earth is round. I call Poe.

 

[ananda]

We have fairly sophisticated tools to help us observe these things. While we cannot personally examine them, the datasets from NASA's satellites and the various other international space agencies are all publicly available.

I don't consider NASA and these other agencies to be reliable witnesses.

Which spin are you talking about? The spin of the earth is, at the north pole, virtually zero. It's at its maximum at the equator, but even there, it barely amounts to half a percent of the gravitational force.

Yes, my mistake. Why are all the stars in the same place, night after night, even considering the alleged spin of the Earth, the spin around the sun, and around the galaxy, and the universe?

We're not talking about levels of reality. We're talking about degrees of abstraction. The file's icon is not the same thing as the file, and the fact that we observe the file as a file, and not a collection of electrons, has to do with how we observe reality, not how reality fundamentally functions. Functionally, it makes very little difference. It's nothing like the difference between the visual abstraction of a solid structure vs. its atomic structure, or the difference between electrons moving through a switchboard and the finished process on the computer screen. None of which are differences with any meaning beyond our perception. Atoms, molecules, cells, organs, humans, and planets obey the same laws of reality. I have no idea where you got the idea that they interact in fundamentally different ways. They will react differently to different mechanics, but that's to be expected. Gravitational force is a function of mass; the electromagnetic force is not. Why would you assume that the laws are so different there? Particularly given the evidence we have that the laws function exactly as expected there. The laws of reality do not change simply because our magnification changes! This is a nonsensical idea. Wouldn't this mean that if we look at a scene through binoculars and then again without binoculars, something should change about it other than how we perceive it?

Perception is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[ananda]

Can these flat-earthers be serious?? No one with any sort of educatuon thought the earth was flat back in Bellarmine's day. Hell, the Greeks knew better. All you have to do is look at the freakin' moon to know that the earth is round. I call Poe.

We flat-earthers (or perhaps concave-earthers) prefer education over educatuon.

 

[The Cadet]

I don't consider NASA and these other agencies to be reliable witnesses.

Of course not. It's not like they're the foremost experts on space and aeronautics or anything relevant to the conversation.

Yes, my mistake. Why are all the stars in the same place, night after night, even considering the alleged spin of the Earth, the spin around the sun, and around the galaxy, and the universe?

Firstly:

Throughout the night, the stars and all the other celestial bodies appear to rotate around the sky. This effect is more or less pronounced depending on how close you are to the equator. The exception in the northern hemisphere being the pole star, Polaris, which does not change significantly because the north pole is pointing almost directly at it. The distance to the stars is so large that our rotation around the sun is, again, insignificant - if there's a mountain 10 miles away, and you keep your gaze on the mountain while pacing in a circle, it will appear to barely move at all. And even then, there are changes - they're just fairly slow. Never heard of axial procession?

Perception is exactly what I'm talking about.

Oh. Well then I guess I'm missing why it's supposed to matter.

 

[Oafman]

Why are all the stars in the same place, night after night, even considering the alleged spin of the Earth, the spin around the sun, and around the galaxy, and the universe?

I suspect your question is not the result of detailed observation!

The stars are not in the same place night after night! The stars you see in the winter are completely different to those you see in the summer. This is because, in the meantime, the Earth has travelled half way around the Sun. So at night time (when you are in a location on Earth that is pointing away from the Sun) during summer, you are looking in the complete opposite direction from where you were looking at night time 6 months earlier. So you see completely different constellations.

Actually, the stars do move in our night sky (from one summer to the next) but this is only noticable over thousands of years (or less if you get some incredibly accurate equipment to measure the changing angles).

The Sun and all the other stars you can see are all orbiting around the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way. It takes the sun around 500,000,000 years to complete one orbit (multicellular life was getting started on Earth one orbit ago!). Nearby stars have similar orbital periods of around half a billion years, but each one's orbit is slightly different. So over time (a lot of time in human terms) their location in the night sky, relative to each other, will change.

Everything we observe fits with the idea that we are on a spherical rock, orbiting a star, which along with many billions of other stars is orbiting something at the centre of our galaxy. If any of this were not true, then nothing we see in the night sky would make a shred of sense.

Edit: plus what TheCadet said about Earth's daily rotation

 

[JacksBratt]

I suspect your question is not the result of detailed observation!

The stars are not in the same place night after night! The stars you see in the winter are completely different to those you see in the summer. This is because, in the meantime, the Earth has travelled half way around the Sun. So at night time (when you are in a location on Earth that is pointing away from the Sun) during summer, you are looking in the complete opposite direction from where you were looking at night time 6 months earlier. So you see completely different constellations.

Actually, the stars do move in our night sky (from one summer to the next) but this is only noticable over thousands of years (or less if you get some incredibly accurate equipment to measure the changing angles).

The Sun and all the other stars you can see are all orbiting around the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way. It takes the sun around 500,000,000 years to complete one orbit (multicellular life was getting started on Earth one orbit ago!). Nearby stars have similar orbital periods of around half a billion years, but each one's orbit is slightly different. So over time (a lot of time in human terms) their location in the night sky, relative to each other, will change.

Everything we observe fits with the idea that we are on a spherical rock, orbiting a star, which along with many billions of other stars is orbiting something at the centre of our galaxy. If any of this were not true, then nothing we see in the night sky would make a shred of sense.

Edit: plus what TheCadet said about Earth's daily rotation

Again, I state that I am not a flat earther. How would we have satellite TV without geosynchronous satellites However, I do have the same question. The constellations move throughout the seasons but are the same over and over. I look and see the big dipper and next year at the same time it is in the same place.

But if we are rotating around the sun and the sun is travelling around in the milky way and the milky way is moving around space too.... Then how do all these ancient constellations stay so perfectly the same for thousands of years?

It makes no sense unless:

1/ They are all rotating with us in synchronicity.
2/ The universe is not what they are telling us.

 

[JacksBratt]

You can see the ISS from the ground. Get a decent telescope, and you can see it well enough to distinguish most of its features.

I agree, totally, that you can see the ISS from the ground. It's a cool site and you can track it by a website to know when it goes over your location at night to see it.

Why, then, are all the videos of the people on the ISS so botched and hokey. Check out Hairspray on the ISS. It's so fake. Hair in weightlessness would not be like this. Inertia is not missing, weight is missing, not mass. Also, in one the lady starts moving in relation to the interior. If she was in space this would mean that the ISS would of had to all of a sudden started to roll on it's axis.

The weightlessness is not constant as they float then move down.
I'm just saying, you could do this in the vomit comet. Then put an orbiting empty can in space.
Why no photo's of space from the ISS, just earth and parts of it at that.
There are a lot of questions that, in my opinion show that NASA is not showing us something. Or, is hiding something.

 

[Astrophile]

This works just as well in a geocentric model.

True, but you were denying that it is the tilt of the Earth's axis that produces the seasons.

 

[Astrophile]

How does looking up SIMBAD's parallax numbers prove parallax?

How could the parallaxes of stars be tabulated in the SIMBAD database if they hadn't been measured? In fact they were measured by the HIPPARCOS satellite. The GAIA probe will yield more accurate parallaxes than HIPPARCOS and to greater distances.

 

[Oafman]

Then how do all these ancient constellations stay so perfectly the same for thousands of years? It makes no sense unless:

1/ They are all rotating with us in synchronicity.
2/ The universe is not what they are telling us.

It's more or less option 1. All the stars that you can see are orbiting in the same direction around the centre of the galaxy.

All these stars do have slightly different orbits. Some will be inclined at an angle to the plane of the galaxy, so they will be 'above' most stars in the galaxy at one point in their orbit, then 'below' most of the galaxy at the opposite point in their orbit. Others will be on a more eccentric orbit, which is an oval, kind of egg shaped. So at one point on their orbit they will be much closer to the centre of the galaxy, and at the oppoisite point of their orbit much further away from the centre. Similar to how Pluto comes close to the Sun (inside Neptune's orbit) on one side of its orbit, and is much further away on the opposite side.

So they're all different. But all of them take hundreds of millions of years to orbit once around the centre of the galaxy, so for their position to change noticeably in the sky from our perspective takes thousands of years.

The shape of the Big Dipper will change in time, but too slowly for you to still be here to notice the change.

 

[Oafman]

I agree, totally, that you can see the ISS from the ground. It's a cool site and you can track it by a website to know when it goes over your location at night to see it.

Why, then, are all the videos of the people on the ISS so botched and hokey.

They just have someone holding a GoPro while floating. It's never going to be high production quality. And they aren't experts in film making.

Check out Hairspray on the ISS. It's so fake. Hair in weightlessness would not be like this. Inertia is not missing, weight is missing, not mass. Also, in one the lady starts moving in relation to the interior. If she was in space this would mean that the ISS would of had to all of a sudden started to roll on it's axis.

Which videos? Can you give links please.

The weightlessness is not constant as they float then move down.

It's hard to put yourself so still that you have no momentum in any direction. Watch on the videos when they want to leave something floating without moving; notice how gentle they have to be when they let go, to ensure it has no rotation or momentun in any direction.

I'm just saying, you could do this in the vomit comet.

There are videos from the ISS of them touring around the various sections of the station that last upwards of half an hour. On some you can see quite far into the station, through a few modules. This could not be done in a plane.

Why no photo's of space from the ISS, just earth and parts of it at that.

Photos of space probably do get taken, but wouldn't be much better than those taken from Earth's surface. So they're a bit dull and we don't get to see them. As for photos showing only part of the Earth, they're only 250 miles up. You would need a seriously wide-angle lens to get in much of the Earth from there. And why bother, when pictures of cities and volvanioes and hurricanes are more interetsing?

There are a lot of questions that, in my opinion show that NASA is not showing us something. Or, is hiding something.

It would be much harder for them to fake it convincingly than to actually do it.

 

[The Cadet]

However, I do have the same question. The constellations move throughout the seasons but are the same over and over. I look and see the big dipper and next year at the same time it is in the same place.

But if we are rotating around the sun and the sun is travelling around in the milky way and the milky way is moving around space too.... Then how do all these ancient constellations stay so perfectly the same for thousands of years?

By and large, our movement relative to other stars is minuscule in a non-geologic timescale. The sun is traveling around the milky way; so are all the other galaxies, and largely in the same direction.

It makes no sense unless:

1/ They are all rotating with us in synchronicity.

More or less this, yeah.

 

[JacksBratt]

They just have someone holding a GoPro while floating. It's never going to be high production quality. And they aren't experts in film making.


Which videos? Can you give links please.

I hope these work. I'm at work and have no access to Youtube. I can get links that I hope work. If not, I apologize, however they should get you close so you can find them yourself.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhzjx8TsuQk

www.youtube.com/watch?v=N05dgTv3gLE

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp9Y8I6v_Ds

 

[JacksBratt]

They just have someone holding a GoPro while floating. It's never going to be high production quality. And they aren't experts in film making.

These area actually quite good quality. The video quality is not the problem.

It's hard to put yourself so still that you have no momentum in any direction. Watch on the videos when they want to leave something floating without moving; notice how gentle they have to be when they let go, to ensure it has no rotation or momentun in any direction.

I understand, totally. However, in these cases, the astronaut is motionless for a period of time, then for no known reason, they move down or rotate. It does lead one to wonder. Then, combine that with the obvious hair do's.

IDK, it raises some suspicions. Some even show what appears to be air bubbles....

There are videos from the ISS of them touring around the various sections of the station that last upwards of half an hour. On some you can see quite far into the station, through a few modules. This could not be done in a plane.

You are right. A plane cannot do this. Explanations are that there is an object orbiting, obviously as you can see it with the naked eye. However, this is vacant, no people, just camera's. The radiation is supposed to be so high that it would be fatal. Even veteran astronauts were asked about the Van Allen belt and you know what his answer was?
Get this, he said " it didn't affect us because we hadn't discovered it yet". Good answer....not.

I don't know what to think. But.... something smells like fish.


As an aside. Why can we take elaborate photos of far off galaxies and space occurrences of all types with amazing HD imaging, with the Hubble telescope, yet, Pluto photos look like they took them with my old Kodak non focus in black and white. Mean while it is way closer that the super nova's and such.

Should we not be able to see HD pics of it too?

Just putting it out there.

 

[ananda]

Of course not. It's not like they're the foremost experts on space and aeronautics or anything relevant to the conversation.

They're not.

Firstly:

Throughout the night, the stars and all the other celestial bodies appear to rotate around the sky. This effect is more or less pronounced depending on how close you are to the equator. The exception in the northern hemisphere being the pole star, Polaris, which does not change significantly because the north pole is pointing almost directly at it. The distance to the stars is so large that our rotation around the sun is, again, insignificant - if there's a mountain 10 miles away, and you keep your gaze on the mountain while pacing in a circle, it will appear to barely move at all. And even then, there are changes - they're just fairly slow. Never heard of axial procession?

Yes, I am aware that the stars rotate in the sky. I was asking, why do they trace the same paths over and over, if the Earth is allegedly spinning around the sun, around the galaxy, and around the universe. If I was in an airplane spinning on its own axis, flying around a larger airplane which itself is flying around yet a larger airplane, and this larger airplane is traveling over the landscape, if I looked out the window, the landscape of the Earth would be ever changing. Not so with the stars.

Oh. Well then I guess I'm missing why it's supposed to matter.

Perception creates reality.

 

[ananda]

I suspect your question is not the result of detailed observation!

The stars are not in the same place night after night! The stars you see in the winter are completely different to those you see in the summer. This is because, in the meantime, the Earth has travelled half way around the Sun. So at night time (when you are in a location on Earth that is pointing away from the Sun) during summer, you are looking in the complete opposite direction from where you were looking at night time 6 months earlier. So you see completely different constellations.

No, they are rotating along the same fixed paths. They may appear to be in different positions along those paths during different seasons, but the paths appear to be the same. If we are rotating as wildly as described in my last post, then the paths themselves would be in different positions.

Actually, the stars do move in our night sky (from one summer to the next) but this is only noticable over thousands of years (or less if you get some incredibly accurate equipment to measure the changing angles).

The Sun and all the other stars you can see are all orbiting around the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way. It takes the sun around 500,000,000 years to complete one orbit (multicellular life was getting started on Earth one orbit ago!). Nearby stars have similar orbital periods of around half a billion years, but each one's orbit is slightly different. So over time (a lot of time in human terms) their location in the night sky, relative to each other, will change.

Everything we observe fits with the idea that we are on a spherical rock, orbiting a star, which along with many billions of other stars is orbiting something at the centre of our galaxy. If any of this were not true, then nothing we see in the night sky would make a shred of sense.

Edit: plus what TheCadet said about Earth's daily rotation

So they're all different. But all of them take hundreds of millions of years to orbit once around the centre of the galaxy, so for their position to change noticeably in the sky from our perspective takes thousands of years.

Have you yourself lived thousands of years to personally witness these alleged changes?

 

[ananda]

True, but you were denying that it is the tilt of the Earth's axis that produces the seasons.

I do deny it. I was merely saying that it does not prove the heliocentric model.

 

[ananda]

How could the parallaxes of stars be tabulated in the SIMBAD database if they hadn't been measured? In fact they were measured by the HIPPARCOS satellite. The GAIA probe will yield more accurate parallaxes than HIPPARCOS and to greater distances.

If I create a table of numbers and label the file "parallaxes.xls", does that make it true? All you are saying is that this group here has a table of numbers, so it must be true. Have you measured those numbers for yourself? I haven't.

 

[ananda]

These area actually quite good quality. The video quality is not the problem.

I understand, totally. However, in these cases, the astronaut is motionless for a period of time, then for no known reason, they move down or rotate. It does lead one to wonder. Then, combine that with the obvious hair do's.

IDK, it raises some suspicions. Some even show what appears to be air bubbles....

I agree, total fakery!

You are right. A plane cannot do this. Explanations are that there is an object orbiting, obviously as you can see it with the naked eye. However, this is vacant, no people, just camera's. The radiation is supposed to be so high that it would be fatal. Even veteran astronauts were asked about the Van Allen belt and you know what his answer was?
Get this, he said " it didn't affect us because we hadn't discovered it yet". Good answer....not.

I don't know what to think. But.... something smells like fish.

Did you see the video on the official NASA youtube channel where a NASA engineer stated that man still needed to figure out how to get past the Van Allen belts? Perhaps he forgot that man (allegedly) already went past them to the Moon 40 years ago.

As an aside. Why can we take elaborate photos of far off galaxies and space occurrences of all types with amazing HD imaging, with the Hubble telescope, yet, Pluto photos look like they took them with my old Kodak non focus in black and white. Mean while it is way closer that the super nova's and such.

Should we not be able to see HD pics of it too?

Just putting it out there.