Flat Earth

Why is there so much interest in the flat earth now?

The concept of a non-moving flat earth which all the luminaries in the sky rotate around is the traditional way virtually all the people of world understood the universe worked.

The idea of a spherical Earth appeared in Greek philosophy with Pythagoras (6th century BC), although most still retained the flat Earth model. Aristotle developed the globe earth theory further around 330 BC. Gradually the Globe Earth theory began to spread from then on.

NASA gave the Globe Earth theory a great boost with their Apollo Moon missions when they produced the ‘blue marble’, the first photograph that was claimed to be an actual photograph of the earth taken from space.

This was the first time man had actually apparently been able to get far enough away from the earth to see what shape it actually is. Some question that if they got up there and saw it was quite different from the globe they had been teaching us about for hundreds of years would they tell us?

In the 50 years since the Apollo missions more and more discrepancies and inconsistencies have appeared and as a result many now no longer believe that NASA was able to send men to the moon. Even NASA themselves quite openly admit they are not able to send men to the moon now, they still have many unsolved problems before they will be able to send men out of low earth orbit including shielding from the deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts surrounding the Earth.

As more and more inconsistencies within NASA’s projects emerge a very large percentage of people now no longer have faith that the few photos of the Earth from space NASA have given us are actually photos of the Earth from space…

So the Flat Earthers now realize, apart from the few questionable photos from NASA, we do not have any actual proof the earth is a rotating globe hurtling through space…

So the wide distrust in NASA combined with Eric Dubay reviving the old flat earth ideas on his youtube channel has created a great resurgence of the idea that the Earth might be flat.

Could the Earth actually be Flat?

The process of science is one first comes up with a hypothesis, a theory, an idea, about how he things a certain system may be working. Then he tests his hypothesis by seeing if the system he has imagined would produce the same results as we see occurring.

In the case of the Globe Earth Theory all we can see is stars, planets and the sun and moon in the sky. And we only have a two dimensional view, there is no depth perception. We can not differentiate a close bright object from a distant dimmer object for example, we can not differentiate between a small close object and a distant large object. For example the sun and moon appear in the sky to us as equally sized balls. Globe Earth theory tells us the moon is close and small and the sun is far away and very large. But to us they appear in the sky to be the same size.

So we have very limited information to work on. All we can see in the sky is objects that either emanate light themselves or objects that are illuminated by some other light, like the light of the sun for example. So we are unable to see anything that does not reflect emit light, is not illuminated or does not reflect light. Also our field of vision is quite limited.

To understand and describe exactly how a large and complex system, like the universe, is working, without being able to see it, is very difficult. This has been explained to be similar to a number of blind men trying to understand what an elephant is. One has his hands around one of the legs of the elephant and says it is just like a tree trunk. Another has got hold of the trunk of the elephant and says it is like a big flexible hose, etc. But how can they understand the elephant? They are blind, they can not see it, they are very small and the elephant is very big…

So an honest scientist would admit this. That they do not understand at all how the universe is working. All they have is a predictive model that they have back engineered. Great and intelligent men have come up with our globe earth predictive model and they have given us something that does, mostly, actually predict what we see happening in the universe around us. But it is only a predictive model, a fairly good predictive model. Because a model predicts the outcome of a system does not guarantee the assumptions upon which the model is built are actually the same as the functioning of the system it is modeling…

So yes. It is possible that the actual situation of the earth is quite different from that we presume it to be. We have never seen the ball floating in space. That is only a concept, a part of a predictive model.

But to be fair the Globe Earth Model is very good. And the flat earth people can not present any sort of valid predictive scientific model at all. They can not agree on a model and none of the models they present work in the sense they do not predict even the basic things we actually experience like they can not even produce a model that correctly predicts the night and day we are actually experiencing in different parts of the world… So if you are a scientist then you have to see what models are available, and clearly the best predictive model we have is the Globe Earth model.

Realistically there is no valid predictive model based on the assumption of a flat earth at present.

Even though the Globe Earth model is good, it is not perfect. There are problems and inconsistencies with it also. And it may not be correct. So anything is possible.

We have open minds and will explore all the possibilities without any prejudice. We do not ‘believe’ in the globe earth or the flat earth. Rather we would like to actually discover the true and actual mechanics and workings of this great machine we call the universe.

The Religion of Flat Earth

Presently there seem to be two camps, Flat Earthers and Globe Earthers, and neither camp can conclusively prove their model is correct. There are problems with both models, many more problems with the Flat Earth model than the Globe Earth model as we have previously mentioned.

It is as if they are two religious groups fighting with each other over their religious beliefs. They are blind believers. They know the earth is flat [or a globe], even though there is sufficient evidence to prove that neither model completely explains what we experience around us.

So it seems to us that in reality none of us properly understand the workings of the universe and we need to all admit that we do not have complete knowledge and that some of the things we blindly accept as proven facts may in fact be incorrect…

Problems with the Flat Earth

Problems with the Flat Earth
The problem with the flat earth is there is no working model. Flat earthers can not...

Read more ...

Flat Earth: A Religion of “True Believers”

Flat Earth: A Religion of “True Believers”
"True believers" KNOW the earth is flat and want to spread their newfound knowledge with the...

Read more ...

Proof the Earth is Flat

Proof the Earth is Flat
According to flat earthers there are hundreds of proofs the earth is flat. So in this...

Read more ...

16 Replies to “Flat Earth”

  1. eric

    I am glad that you admit that flat earther cannot come up with a predictive model that works, while the globe model can and does make accurate predictions of all sorts, including astronomical events and the behavior of flying and orbiting objects. But to claim that the globe model does not accurately predict something, therefor the earth might not be a globe, seems pretty silly. Actually, I can’t imagine what examples you could give for what the globe model gets wrong. Whether you examine the concept of a globe earth by mathematical analysis of shadows of objects cast on different areas of the earth at the same time of day, or by real world experience of travel times and distance, or by examining the worlds outside of earth and noting similarities, or by the physics of rocket launches and stable orbits, or by one of dozens of other methods of confirming the size and shape of the earth, EVERY piece of evidence supports a globe earth. Anyone who claims there is evidence that “belies” a globe earth, is inevitably referring to misunderstood photographs, and not much else.

    Keep in mind we are not talking about some sort of abstract concept here. We are talking about the shape of the planet upon which we live. whether it is a cube, or a pyramid, or a plate or a cylinder, there would be mathmatical evidence, visual evidence, physical evidence.

    The strongest piece of evidence for “visually inclined” people is the shape of the earth’s shadow. If NOTHING else convinces you, thinking about the earth’s shadow should make you think “duh, of course that proves the earth is a globe.” The shadow of the earth passes over the moon any time there is a lunar eclipse. Lunar eclipses can be seen at different times of day, from different areas of the earth, and over hours or minutes of time… Remember that the shadow of the earth on the moon is caused by the sunlight hitting the earth from one side, and casting the earth’s shadow on the moon, elsewhere in the sky. That shadow is ALWAYS round. If the earth were ANY shape other than a globe, the shadow would sometimes have some OTHER shape. it would appear oval, or as a flat line, or some other form depending on what shape you wanted to insist the earth was. Only a globe earth would have a shadow that was round, no matter what angle it was viewed from or how long you watch it traverse the face of moon or what angle the earth was in relation to the moon.

    Please remember, scientists are people of curiosity and a love of knowledge. If any of them, the world over, had any evidence that the world was not a sphere, they would not hide that knowledge. It’s not in their nature.

    • madhudvisa

      Hi Eric
      Thanks for the very thoughtful comment.

      Yes. Any sane person would have to appreciate the ingenuity and intelligence required by some of the greatest minds in the history of humanity who have come up with the globe earth model. It is quite good in so many respects.

      But you have to understand how the globe earth model was developed.

      It is ‘reverse engineering’. They have the idea of a globe earth and then there were many contradictions and many things did not work. So they had to make many, many adjustments and invent some new questionable things also, to make the globe earth model work. For example they could not get the orbits of the planets to work, then someone discovered if they made the orbits of the planets elliptical that would then fit better with our actual observations. But there is no actual reason, no logic, as to why the orbits of the planets should be elliptical. It makes no sense, there is no reason for it, no explanation for it, it is just a ‘tweak’ that makes the globe earth model’s predictions closer to what we observe.

      Scientists have made so many arbitrary unsubstantiated and illogical tweaks like this to adjust differences in the predictions of the globe model so they are closer to what we observe happening in the actual system. For example initially they could not explain the seasons on a globe earth, then some smart person came up with the idea that if the earth was titled at 23.44 degrees and rotating that would create a situation where different parts of the earth would receive sunshine in different proportions and that would be similar to what we actually observe happening. So this tweak was also added to the globe earth model. There is no reason for it. We can not measure it, we do not know actually if the earth is a spinning globe tilted at 23.44 degrees orbiting around the sun in 365 days.

      So what I am getting at is that of course the globe earth theory is a good theory. Because many of the greatest minds who have ever lived have worked very hard to tweak this theory in so many ways so its predictions come close to what we see actually happening.

      But because we have a predictive model that works fairly well in predicting the outcomes of a system does not in itself prove that the system is working in exactly the same way as the way the model is constructed. The system may, in reality, be working in quite a different way.

      For example everything is relative. We can perceive relative motion. So we know certainly for a fact that the sun, moon, stars and planets are all moving relative to the earth. But we are inside this system and from our vantage point on earth there is no way we can tell if it is the earth rotating or the heavenly bodies rotating around the earth. This is a relative rotation. We can perceive the relative rotation but we can not conclusively determine if it is the earth rotating or the other heavenly bodies rotating around the earth.

      Scientists have, over the years, designed a number of experiments trying to prove the rotation of the earth. They have all failed to detect any rotation except the Foucault Pendulum experiment, however we know that things on the earth are affected by forces imposed on them by the heavenly bodies. For example the moon effects the oceans and causes the tides to be larger or smaller depending on its position in the sky. So if all the heavenly bodies were rotating around the earth together this would create quite a strong rotational force which would be quite capable of impacting the swing of a pendulum.

      Actually, if the earth was rotating at 1000 miles per hour at the equator and orbiting the sun at a distance of 93,000,000 miles every 365 days, meaning it has to travel pi times the diameter which is 3.14 * 93,000,000 * 2 = 584,040,000 miles in 365 days, that is 66,671 miles per hour we are moving around the sun at, and at the same time we are spinning around at 1000 miles per hour and also at the same time the sun is rotating around the center of the universe and pulling all the planets in the solar system with it and at the same time the whole universe is rotating around the center of the galaxy. Are you dizzy yet? You should be. If it was true. But it is obviously not true. That would be in contradiction to the laws of physics. If we were moving in a straight line at a constant velocity then you could put forward the argument that we could not feel that or measure it. But this theory supposes we are rotating in at least 4 different directions at the same time and traveling very fast in different directions. So this rotation and movement in different directions at the same time would create forces that we could measure and feel. But we can not measure or feel any forces.

      In fact the earth appears to be ‘as solid a rock’. If we are looking for an analogy for stability we think of the fixed stationary earth. And you can not argue this point. The earth does appear to be stationary. It appears stationary to our senses, we can not detect any spinning or any other forces that would be detectable if it was moving as the globe earth model presupposes. So this is a great flaw in the globe earth model. It proposes the earth is moving in ways which it is obviously not. Because if the earth was moving in the ways proposed by the globe earth model we would be able to detect it. We would be able to feel the forces and be conscious of the moving, rotating earth under our feet, and the scientists would be able to measure these forces exactly. But we can not feel anything and the scientists can not measure anything…

      Of course the magic force that holds the whole globe earth theory together is gravity. Without gravity the globe earth model would be impossible. Gravity is something we can not prove, we can not test or measure. Everything they can not explain is magically caused by gravity…

      As far as your proof of the globe earth, a round shadow passing over the moon at the time of a lunar eclipse, how to you know that is the shadow of the earth? That is a theory also. It could just as easily be the shadow of something else. Of course we do not know of any heavenly body that could be causing this shadow except earth, but according to the Vedic texts of ancient India there is another, still undiscovered by us, planet, called Rahu, it is dark, does not reflect any light, and moves in the sky like the stars. So we can’t find it because as it moves with the stars it does not occult the stars. Of course it is covering some stars but it is always covering the same stars, so we don’t notice it. So you may or may not believe this but they have created a working predictive model of the universe assuming that the shadow on the moon at the time of a lunar eclipse is caused by this dark planet Rahu.

      So the whole point is that this theory that the earth is a globe is only a theory. We are very convinced about it because it is taught to us as if it was an absolute fact, as if we know it. But we do not know what shape the earth is. Scientists were always presenting us with a perfect globe. But more recently they tell us it is not a globe but an ‘oblate spheroid’, flattened out at the equator. And even more recently Neil De Grass Tyson informs us that the earth is now pear shaped. That is because they have discovered the latitude circumference in the southern hemisphere is bigger than the corresponding latitude circumference in the northern hemisphere. So now the scientists are saying the earth is pear shaped.

      So we know for certain now that the earth is not a globe. But what it actually is, that we are not sure.

      Regards

      Madhudvisa dasa

  2. Adam

    Madhudvisa,

    We absolutely CAN measure the tilt of the Earth. All that is required is to measure the intensity of the sun at various times of the year. That difference is proportional to the angle of the sun relative to the surface of the Earth. A greater intensity indicates the sun’s rays are closer to perpendicular to Earth’s surface. This is corroborated by a measurement of the sun’s inclination. This measurement does not prove the Earth is round because it can be explained by the flat Earth model as well.

    You are correct that when measured from the surface of the Earth, we cannot easily prove the geocentric or heliocentric models. However, the heliocentric model puts all solar planets in nice predictable orbits. For a geocentric model, we have to come up with logical reasons for EVERY other planet’s retrograde motion. Retrograde motion confused ancient geocentric astrologers into thinking things like “Mars is moving towards Venus, clearly preparing to attack! Oh wait, he changed his mind and is now retreating.” To subscribe to a flat Earth model, one would need to devise a reason for the confounding motion of the other planets. The description on tfes.org does not work because it requires gravity, which their model eschews in favor of “universal acceleration”. It also does not explain the movement of distant star relative to closer stars (research ‘parallax’ or ‘parsec’ to see an explanation). I doubt that the “firmament” flat Earth group has a logical explanation for retrograde motion.

    You state the the motion described by a heliocentric model should be felt by every inhabitant of Earth. You state that the motion “would be in contradiction to the laws of physics.” Which laws are being contradicted? You seem to hint that we are unable to feel velocity, but are instead able to feel acceleration. I agree with that. If you drive on a straight, flat road at 60 MPH, you will not feel that motion. You only feel when you accelerate, and only when that acceleration is above a certain rate. This is why we feel it when a car starts, stops, and corners. All of those are acceleration.

    Your premise is that we should feel the acceleration of our planet’s rotation. However, Earth is rotating approximately 360° in 24 hours. That works out to be 15° per hour, or .25° per minute. To test for yourself if this should be acceleration you could feel, hop on a merry-go-round, and set it to rotate 1/4 of one degree per minute. Do you expect to feel that? Now you may want to claim that we have to also factor in our acceleration around the sun. Well, that’s 360° is 365 days, which is .986 degrees per day, or .016 degrees per hour, or .000274 degrees per minute. If we consider our rotation around the galactic core, the rate of acceleration is even lesser. The local cluster, even lesser. I presume my point has been made: It is impossible for a human to “feel” the Earth moving. Even when all of those accelerations are added together, we do not feel it. This is why the Earth appears to be “As solid as a rock”.

    However, these forces CAN be measured! If you take an accurate gyroscope and fly a few hundred miles, you will see that it is not oriented the way that it should be. Airplane gyroscopes have to account for this, and they do. Airliners adjust for gyroscopic drift (apparent precession) with electromagnetic erection mechanism taking cues from GPS. Simpler and less expensive systems exist for smaller planes.

    There are a few reasons why we know that the shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is from the Earth. First, it has happened hundreds of times in the past with the same results. So we are fairly sure something is casting a shadow. Second, to cast a shadow that size requires a large object. The only nearby large object is the Earth. If it were cast by something farther away, that object would need to be significantly larger than the Earth. Likewise, that distant, large object would simultaneously cast its shadow on the Earth (since the Earth is between the sun and the moon at this time). This has never happened, so we can safely conclude that the Earth must be casting that shadow.

    We can easily discount Rahu for several reasons. If it were moving with the stars to prevent detection, where could it possibly be located? To cast a shadow, it would have to be between the sun and the moon. There is no location between the sun and the moon where an object, large enough to cast a shadow that size, could reside without blocking a noticeable area of the sky. Also, lunar eclipses are easily predicted, and those predictions align nicely with the times where the Earth is between the sun and the moon. These reasons should be enough to convince anyone that Rahu is far too problematic to possibly exist. I will concede that this is not “proof”, but Rahu is far more problematic than gravity.

    You say “theory” in a few places where I think you should have said “hypothesis”.
    – A scientific fact is an undeniable observation. It is absolute and immutable. E.G. “There is currently one tree in my front yard.”
    – A scientific hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon. Facts are used to develop hypotheses. A hypothesis has not been tested well enough to consider true or false.
    – A scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon. It HAS been tested thoroughly, and has passed all tests.
    – A scientific law is a description (often mathematical) of an observed phenomenon. A law can change, and may have exceptions.
    A theory never becomes a law because a theory is an explanation of how it happens, while a law is a description of what is happening. Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravity, but could not explain what it is or how it worked (the theory). With his law we could calculate gravity, but it wasn’t until Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity that we started understanding gravity. Theories are sometimes later shown to be wrong, and are then either updated or discarded.

    I also want to point out that you deride scientists for “tweaking” their model in order to make it align with observations. That is a dangerous thought process on your part! You should ALWAYS be ready to adjust your views when presented with updated information. You are correct that early models predicted circular orbits, and that those models were updated to elliptical orbits when Newton measured that planets sometimes move faster in their orbit. At that point, elliptical orbiting was a hypothesis of his. Centuries later, we can validate his hypothesis and call it a theory.

    At the end of your post, you say “So we know for certain now that the earth is not a globe.” But nowhere did you present any proof. I believe that I have rebutted everything you presented as evidence. Let me know if I made any errors, or if my descriptions are too vague.

    • madhudvisa

      Hi Adam

      Yes. As I have said the globe earth model is a very good scientific predictive model. It is something that has been worked on by some of the most intelligent men in the history of science, and everything has been thoroughly thought out and tested. So you have an answer for everything. Not your answers, of course, but you have the answers that have been handed down to you through the scientific tradition.

      Your point that the acceleration of the earth is caused by the rotation and that the rotation is rather slow and we would not feel it. So that is a valid point of course. Flat earthers talk about the 1000 miles per hour rotation at the equator, but as you rightly point out the real important thing is the rotation because the speed is constant.

      So you have made many good points and I admit Globe Earth Theory is a good theory and we have no other theory that can compare with it at all…

      I am saying modern science no longer accepts the earth as a globe. You can research this for yourself. They say oblate spheroid, means flattened at the equator, or, more recently, pear shaped [of course slightly], bigger in the south than in the north. So these are the current statements of some scientists claiming the earth is not a globe, not me.

      Certainly I have to give great credit to the globe earth model. It does a very good job of explaining our observations and in the absence of any other valid predictive model there is no alternative for scientific people like your good self to accept it. My point is the flat earth people have no such model. Nothing they say, at least currently, can be used to comprehensively predict the observations we are able to make of the system.

      To you, and most scientifically minded people, the globe earth model is very satisfying, because you can understand it and you can test it also by observing the workings of the system. So it gives you a nice warm feeling of knowing how it works. Also to me I find it a very convincing model. The more you investigate it the more it does seem to very nicely fit with the observations we make. So I am not saying the earth is not a globe. I am just keeping the possibility open that it may not be and investigating the possible alternatives.

      My point is that even though the flat earth people are unable to present such a predictive model, it may well be that the globe earth model is not absolutely correct. You are correct of course that scientists should always be ready to adjust their models when new information is available, and science is always in a state of constant flux. So globe earth model is no exception to this. They are now saying it is not a globe, oblate spheroid or pear shaped now…

      And my point with the tweaks is that there is no real reason or justification for the tweaks. Like making the orbits of the planets into elliptical, they don’t try to explain WHY the orbits of the planets should be elliptical. It just happens to make it work better for their model, so they accept it without being able to understand why it should be like that. Also the earth spinning on its axis and tilting. That is an explanation or tweak for an observation that you claim to be proof that the earth is tilted… So you are going round in circles. So we can not measure the tilt. We have invented the tilt to explain the observation of the seasons. But that is just a convenient tweak that neatly and believably explains the seasons.

      Another point I made is that we are within the system and we are experiencing relative motion, so there is no way we can tell if it is the earth rotating or if it is everything else we see in the sky rotating around the earth. You can not say confidently one way or the other. Because we are within the system and we can only measure the relative rotation. You have arbitrarily assumed the earth is rotating, someone else could arbitrarily assume everything is rotating around the earth and present a model based on that. And there is no way we could tell which model was correct.

      So I appreciate your points, and I appreciate the globe model. But at the same time I am keeping my options open to the possibility that it may be wrong.

      • Adam

        Here is why I accept the Heliocentric model: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Mars_motion_2018.png
        That is the predicted path of Mars, relative to the constellations, for 2018. The Heliocentric model can predict these things, with remarkable accuracy, over the next few decades or even centuries. I do not know of a geocentric model that can map the motion of the planets properly. And even if they could, how do they explain retrograde motion? If a planet is orbiting Earth, what causes it to change direction and move backwards? What then causes it to change direction again, and return to its original course? How does a force affect Mars like that without affecting Earth?
        If a geocentric model exists that can explain those things, I would love to learn more about it.

        Regarding elliptical orbits, we see the orbital speed of other planets change, so we can formulate a scientific law: planets move faster for part of their orbit. We then devised a hypothesis: their orbits may be elliptical. We then test that hypothesis. If it passes every test, the hypothesis becomes a theory.
        That worked well for centuries. Now we have space-based telescopes that have verified those old theories (usually with minor adjustments due to the greater accuracy of the new instruments).

        Regarding Rahu, it does not exist. There is no place in the sky, 31 arc minutes across (more than one half of one degree), that is devoid of stars. The reason we can say this so confidently is because both the sun and the moon are in a very narrow band of the sky. To create a shadow on the moon, Rahu would need to be in that same band. That greatly reduces the search area. Coincidentally, that band is the most frequently searched area, due to a number of reasons.

        Even if we didn’t have that proof, we could further narrow down the search area by noting the location of the sun and the moon during a lunar eclipse, and estimating where Rahu must be. I do not know if anyone has tried that last point, but would be surprised if no Rahu believer had ever tried.

        • madhudvisa

          Hi Adam

          Yes. Of course heliocentric model has got a lot of developed science around it. And that is naturally so. The thing is scientifically inclined people hear from the high priests of science how things are and they work within that box. So every “scientific” person blindly accepts these basic principles like the earth is a ball spinning in space and it and the other planets are orbiting the sun in elliptical orbits. This is established science and if you question any of it you will be considered stupid and will be rejected by the wise scientists.

          So this means that all scientific research and development exclusively goes into supporting and developing the existing models. There is no room in science for questioning these accepted principles.

          Science is self-supporting. They come up with a theory, test it, and then come to accept it as an article of faith and anyone who questions it is a heretic and is rejected from the church of science.

          So it is for this reason that there is no properly formulated geocentric model. Because thoughful people are captured by science and educated in such a way they are convinced the model accepted by science is the one true model that accurately describes what is happening.

          So no one seriously tries to develop any model that does not accept the basic principles already accepted by science.

          The points you make sound very nice, but they are not your points, they have been developed by many thoughtful scientists and tested and refined by many others. But they are all based on the initial assumption that we are on a ball spinning in space, rotating around the sun, etc. And that is just an assumption. Models that work just as well can be developed making other initial assumptions.

          As far as Rahu, it can not be actual fixed in a place in the sky, although it is said Rahu moves like the stars, it must also move around the sky, because solar eclipses do not always occur in the same sign of the zodiac. So I do not know the actual position of Rahu or its actual movements. But do not have so much faith in your scientists and claim Rahu does not exist because they have not detected it.

          We know so little, we can see so little from our vantage point here on earth. The example of a frog in a well is given. The frog is sitting at the bottom of his well and observing the small circle of sky he can see out of the top of his well. Sometimes it is dark sometimes he can see blue sky, sometimes there are clouds, sometimes some rain comes in his well, etc. So our friend Dr. Frog PhD. has come up with his own cosmology to explain the universe he observes through the small hole in the top of his well. But what use is the science of Dr. Frog? What can he actually see out the top of his well? Very little.

          So that is our position. We can only see a very tiny part of the universe and have no ability to perceive most of the universe and no way of understanding how it is working.

          So the situation we are in now is the only developed scientific model we have is the globe earth model but that is a model only and we have no actual proof this model accurately describes the system by which the universe is actually working.

          I appreciate from your point of view you have no option but accept this model. Because there is no other model available. Science prohibits thinking outside the box. They create the box and then force everyone to think within their box.

          So that is why the only model is the globe earth model and it is sacrilegious to even contemplate an alternative model. So there are no other models. Science is a very effective system of thought control.

          • Adam

            madhudvisa,
            You cannot claim that “every scientific person blindly accepts these basic principles”. First off, you cannot speak for EVERY other person. Really, you should not speak for any other person. Secondly, if you want to defy those basic principles, you just need to provide data that contradicts those principles, or supports your alternative principles. If you lack that data, you will need to research your hypothesis until you have sufficient data to support it.

            “So this means that all scientific research and development exclusively goes into supporting and developing the existing models. There is no room in science for questioning these accepted principles.”
            No. This is completely false. History is rife with examples of scientists that defied the accepted model. Copernicus, Michael Servetus, Galileo, Alfred Wegener, Steven Hawking, and others were all mocked for their hypotheses, but later proved to be correct. In addition to that, relatively little research money goes into supporting the existing models. The vast majority of funding is directed at expanding our understanding by trying to measure and test things we do not currently have an adequate understanding of.

            “Science is self-supporting. They come up with a theory, test it, and then come to accept it as an article of faith and anyone who questions it is a heretic and is rejected from the church of science.”
            You are misusing the word “theory”. You should have said “hypothesis”. A theory is a hypothesis that has been thoroughly tested, and has passed all of those tests. The scientific method is to observe something, form a hypothesis for the behavior, and test that hypothesis. If it passes all tests, it may be “upgraded” to a theory. If a hypothesis or a theory ever fails a tests, it is either revised to account for the new data, or the hypothesis/theory is discarded.
            Nobody who questions a theory is branded a heretic anymore, that was an artifact of the Catholic and protestant churches of the dark ages. However, anyone who questions a theory IS expected to provide a scientific reason for their views. If you want to reject all the testing that has been done so far, you need to provide some data to support that. This is where people get frustrated with modern science. They do a few hours of research on Facebook and YouTube, and want to challenge well-tested theories. When these skeptics are asked for data to back up their claim, none is provided, so those skeptics are summarily dismissed. The skeptic will then sometimes pull the “martyr card”, and claim that “big pharma” or some other “big” science is oppressing their contradictory view in order to horde money or keep people “in the dark”. In a way, it is sad that they are discounted so callously, but there is really no other option. We cannot expect every scientist to stop their research in order to bring some skeptic “up to speed” on the topic. That is the role education is supposed to fill. You can’t expect NASA engineers to stop what they are doing and explain that when a hot-air balloon lifts off the Earth, the balloon doesn’t lose the rotational energy that it had while on the ground, and that is why it can later land in (nearly) the same spot.
            It is really important that you understand this! You are not being oppressed because you have a differing view. You are being discounted because you have no data to back up your claim. Now, I know you have said that you are not necessarily a flat-earther, but are just keeping an open mind. That is to be commended, as it is a core tenet of the scientific method. But to “keep an open mind” about geocentricism means you have to reject the data provided by hundreds of satellites, thousands and thousands of professional researchers, and millions of amateurs that have all confirmed the relevant data. To reject that data, you should have contradictory data that invalidates their hypotheses and theories. You do not have this required data. On top of that, your continuously belittle the heliocentric/globe model by saying things like “It’s the sole accepted model, but only because people aren’t actively researching other models.” This, along with your general tone, makes me think that you really aren’t keeping an open mind, but are a geocentrist that is afraid of being identified as such. I’ll state this right now: there is nothing wrong with being a geocentrist, if you can provide data to support your view, or a model that hasn’t been disproved.

            “So it is for this reason that there is no properly formulated geocentric model. Because thoughful people are captured by science and educated in such a way they are convinced the model accepted by science is the one true model that accurately describes what is happening.”
            Okay, a few things about this. You cannot say that THIS is the reason no geocentric model exists. Another possibility is that geocentric models were devised (many were), and were all disproved (they have been). There are a plethora of geocentric models, but they all have fatal flaws. Some of the original globe-Earth models were geocentric.
            Thoughtful people are, in a sense, “captured” and educated by science. But I want to talk about your use of the word “convinced”. Do you claim that these thoughtful people are lied to, or shown false data? Galileo Galilei and Alfred Wegener each started their careers believing the accepted models, then endured considerable persecution when their data contradicted those models, and they announced their new model. Galileo lived under house arrest for the remainder of his life, and Wegener died while accumulating more data for his hypothesis. Bear in mind that Wegener’s work was in the mid 1900’s. In fact, Jacques Cousteau was a particularly outspoken denier of continental drift, and decided to prove Wegener wrong by dragging a camera at the end of a cable across the ocean floor. Later, he very humbly took his video to a geological conference and showed them the footage that proved him wrong, and proved Wegener right.

            “So no one seriously tries to develop any model that does not accept the basic principles already accepted by science.”
            They do, when they find data that contradicts those basic principles. Quantum mechanics is an entire field devoted to science that seemingly exists entirely outside of the basic principles accepted by science. Of course we now have measured data that supports SOME of the quantum mechanic hypotheses, but many of them are nowhere near the point where they could become proper theories.
            So contradicting basic principles happens, just not often. And the reason for its rarity is due to the rigors of the scientific method. Since so much effort goes into collecting accurate data, we can produce hypotheses (and then theories) that are robust, and rarely need updating. We then meticulously test, and measure the results. Most researchers then publish their findings for others to review. This publishing (sharing) allows us to “stand on the shoulders of giants”. That is where later researchers use published research as a starting point to begin their own work. This enables them to begin much further along than they otherwise would be able to.
            But I want to point out something else about this that you may not have considered. The first to publish a finding gets credit for it. If it is significant enough, they may qualify for more funding, or even a prize (like the Nobel prize). Because of this, there is considerable reviewing of published findings. We call this “peer review”, and sufficient peer review is an essential requirement when citing research to support a claim. You have to also consider that some of the peers reviewing a published paper WANT to prove it wrong, in order to eventually make that discovery for themselves or their team. A perfect example of trying to prove it wrong is the Fleischmann–Pons (cold fusion) experiment. They claimed to have made an amazing discovery, but nobody else could duplicate their work, so it was discredited.

            “The points you make sound very nice, but they are not your points, they have been developed by many thoughtful scientists and tested and refined by many others. But they are all based on the initial assumption that we are on a ball spinning in space, rotating around the sun, etc. And that is just an assumption. Models that work just as well can be developed making other initial assumptions.”
            Is a point only valid if it is my original idea? And no, they are not all based on the assumption that we are on a ball spinning in space. The predicted path of Mars does not require the heliocentric model. However, there are NO geocentric models that can predict the retrograde motion of planets. Regardless, we have a LOT of data that supports the heliocentric model, and NO data that supports a geocentric model. I cannot say with 100% certainty that the heliocentric model is true, but it is a very safe model to accept. And until another model comes along that has any supporting data, I will stick with the heliocentric model. Any alternative would be illogical.
            Name one model that works just as well when making other initial assumptions.

            “As far as Rahu, it can not be actual fixed in a place in the sky, although it is said Rahu moves like the stars, it must also move around the sky, because solar eclipses do not always occur in the same sign of the zodiac. So I do not know the actual position of Rahu or its actual movements. But do not have so much faith in your scientists and claim Rahu does not exist because they have not detected it.”
            You basically just used the “Russell’s teapot” analogy. You claim that Rahu is infalsifiable. I’ve actually shown you that there is no section of the sky that contains 31 arcminutes of area without stars. This makes Rahu falsifiable. All you need to do to prove Rahu is to locate a section of the sky that contains no stars where we once were able to see stars. This ought to be easy. Just start following astronomy message boards and wait for someone to say something like “I couldn’t see proxima centauri yesterday. Why was that?” But as with all infalsifiable claims, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim (you, in this case).

            “So the situation we are in now is the only developed scientific model we have is the globe earth model but that is a model only and we have no actual proof this model accurately describes the system by which the universe is actually working.”
            No, we have lots of proof of the globe Earth model. We have pictures of the globe from many sources. The early pictures were from balloons, like the Explorer II in 1938: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0a/b7/81/0ab781b17e4c46a52b76da6b27e3dc8c.jpg That picture has a straight line drawn on it to visualize the curvature.
            In 1946, we had the White Sands V2 launches by Clyde Holliday and others, that had a camera automatically take a picture every 1.5 seconds. On this page you can watch those images combined into a video: http://www.airspacemag.com/videos/early-v-2-photos-of-earth/
            In the late 1960s, we got our first picture of the entire Earth taken in one shot, Earthrise: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/apollo08_earthrise.jpg
            We now have satellites that have measured the orbital path of the Earth and other planets, and those measurements have confirmed the heliocentric models that we proposed prior to space-based instruments.

            “I appreciate from your point of view you have no option but accept this model. Because there is no other model available. Science prohibits thinking outside the box. They create the box and then force everyone to think within their box.”
            There ARE other models, but most of them have been disproved. The remainder have no data to back their model, so they are unattractive. That doesn’t automatically make them wrong, but they will require more data before they can be taken seriously.

            “So that is why the only model is the globe earth model and it is sacrilegious to even contemplate an alternative model. So there are no other models. Science is a very effective system of thought control.”
            It is NOT sacrilegious to contemplate an alternative model. However, the alternatives need to be scientifically sound. To be taken seriously, you need to have data that backs your model. That is what geocentrism is lacking. It does not have data to back it, and every model that has been forwarded is easily disproved. The Kurma/A’Tuin model is just as valid as the modern flat-Earth model. However, there is no data that supports those models, and there is plenty of data that refutes them.
            Science IS a form of thought control. It teaches us how to control our thoughts. Now, when we hear thunder, we try to determine what natural force could cause that sound. This is an improvement over the ancient idea that the gods were fighting with each other.

          • madhudvisa

            Hi Adam

            I think we are making progress! You admit that science is a system of mind control, and you are correct. But it is a far more extensive and insidious system of mind control than you could ever imagine.

            You claim you have proof that the earth is a globe, but you know that the current scientific opinion is the earth is not a globe. Globe is old news, they changed it to an oblate spheroid long ago and more recently they changed it to pear shaped because it is bigger in the south than it is in the north. So now even the scientists who have studied these things do not accept that the earth is a globe. So we can say that certainly the earth is not a globe.

            As far as photos showing the curvature of the earth from a balloon, they naturally use wide-angle lenses to take these photos and you may know that wide angle lenses introduce distortion that causes straight lines to appear as curves. So the curve is in the lens, not on the horizon. You can easily test this for yourself because ordinary commercial flights are at about 35,000 feet, that is almost seven miles up in the sky. That is much higher than your 1930s balloon and you can see, if you just look out the window, that the horizon rises up to your eye level and is perfectly flat all the way around 360 degrees.

            As far as NASA, presumably you are aware they faked the Apollo manned moon missions? I think now almost everyone is aware of that? If not there is plenty of information on the internet and you can easily educate yourself on that. So NASA is mostly fake. And because so much of what NASA put out is fake everything they say and do is unfortunately totally discredited. It’s amazing. In December last year I visited the Johnson space center with a list of questions I wanted to ask some authoritative person in NASA in regard to the moon missions and I spoke to so many of them there but I did not meet even a single NASA employee who was convinced they ever sent men to the moon. So nowadays thoughtful people know that NASA faked the moon missions. They may not come out openly and say it, but it is obvious. We don’t know how to send men to the moon now, in 2018, so obviously we did not know how to send men to the moon in 1969…

            If they could take pictures of the globe floating in space we would have it, but for some reason we don’t have it. Whenever NASA puts out an occasional picture of the globe it turns out to be a creation of Photoshop.

            Anyhow there is no point discussing this here. Every thoughtful person who has looked into it knows that NASA faked the moon missions.

            That is the problem really, we have no proof that the earth is a globe, it is only a theory. And as I mentioned now even scientists don’t accept it as a globe, they now think it is pear-shaped…

            As far as science and mind control, every scientific person MUST accept the ‘scientific method’. They must voluntary imprison their minds in the small box that science allows them to exercise mental speculation within. And yes, science will permit them to speculate, to critique existing theories and to propose new ones, but only within the very limited scope of the small box they imprison everyone within.

            You can not question the basic tenants of science. For example a basic tenant of science is evolution. So you can not question evolution. Evolution presupposes a gradual development of species from primitive to highly developed over a long period of time. But this is not supported by the fossil record. They are always finding highly developed humans in ancient times, long, long, before humans were supposed to have evolved. So because this challenges their evolution theory, they suppress this evidence, they hide it, they destroy it. Scientists know that if they discover anything that challenges any basic tenant of science that they should not publish it. But if they do publish it they will be discredited, they will be sacked, they will loose their funding, etc, etc.

            I am sure you are aware that these days scientists need money to purchase food and to feed their families. So every scientist has to find a job, they need to get a master and follow the orders of their master. So the master will dictate to the scientist what the results of his research will be and he will pay the scientist to get those results. Monsanto employs scientists, for example, to prove that Roundup and their GMO crops are safe. So you can not work for Monsanto and discover that Roundup causes cancer, for example. You would be fired, your research would be destroyed, etc, etc.

            There is a whole field of science called ‘climate science’. And everyone the research of everyone employed as a ‘climate science’ MUST prove that all the problems of the world are caused by man’s carbon emissions. If a climate scientist was to discover, for example, that the carbon emitted by the endeavors of mankind is totally insignificant in comparison to the natural emissions and the natural capacity to absorb carbon, that would be unacceptable. Even if it was true. For the purpose of ‘climate science’ is political. It is not scientific at all. The science is irrelevant.

            So, these days, every scientist is employed, he has a master and he has to serve his master by providing the results his master demands.

            This has always been the nature of science. Every scientist believes in something. Every scientist is trying to prove his theory, not for the sake of increasing the knowledge of mankind, not for the sake of knowledge, no. He wants to become a famous scientist, he wants recognition, he wants money… So the science is irrelevant. For whatever reason he is trying to prove something and he will cheat to do it. He looks for things that can be presented as proof for his theory and he ignores things that may not favorably reflect on his theory.

            So your man in the balloon in 1930 with his camera was trying to prove the earth was a globe. So he used a wide-angle lens and in this way cheated and showed everyone the photos, proving that the earth was a globe with his bogus photo, knowing well that no one else was going to go up there in a balloon and check it. And even if a scientist did go up and look he would never blow the whistle. Because that would be against the primary principle of science. [Never discredit any of the established scientific principles…]

            So of course we could write volumes on this but I think you get the point. I am very happy that you have admitted that science is nothing more that a system of thought control that cripples and disables any intelligent and thoughtful person who is unfortunate enough to be consumed by it.

          • madhudvisa

            You mentioned many things but I want to also address your comments on Rahu and your belief in the heliocentric theory.

            As for Rahu you provided a nice method for trying to locate Rahu. You suggested that as we know the exact position of Rahu at the time of the solar eclipse then we could just track that position in the sky and see where Rahu is the next day. But the problem you have missed is that at any point of time half of the sky is invisible to us because of the sun being in the sky. The only reason we can see Rahu at the time of the solar eclipse is because it comes in front of the sun. Otherwise, Rahu is in the sky, but due to the sky being illuminated by the sun, we can not see Rahu…

            So there is no way we can track Rahu in the sky after a solar eclipse because as soon as the eclipse is over the sun comes out and Rahu disappears from our vision. And the next day Rahu is still in the sky, but invisible to us because it is in the sunny half of the sky. Then we can also deduce the presence of Rahu at the time of Lunar eclipses, they happen at night, and they are caused by the shadow of Rahu coming across the moon, which means, at that time, Rahu is also in the half of the sky that is illuminated by the sun. So all Rahu has to do to remain undetectable to us is to remain in that half of the sky that is illuminated by the sun. Then we could never detect it. So do not be so confident that you know everything and that Rahu can not exist. Rahu can most certainly exist and scientists know very, very little about the universe we find ourselves in and our position within it.

            As far as your confidence that our universe is heliocentric. I have mentioned before it is all relative and we are within the system and all we can perceive is the relative motion of the other heavenly bodies to Earth. So it is just mathematics. You can select any of the heavenly bodies and presume that is stationary and calculate everything on that basis using the exact same globe earth model that we use. It is just that you are accustomed to accepting the sun as the central point. That is just an arbitrary choice. You can choose the earth as the central point and apply exactly the same model and everything will still work.

            There is no way we can determine, from within the system, what is actually happening. To determine this you would have to be able to observe the system [our solar system] from outside the system. From within the system we can only perceive movement relative to Earth. So you can make this model work for a stationary earth also, by having all the heavenly bodies rotate around the earth. So we can not tell what is actually happening, because we are within the system. We have just arbitrarily chosen some assumptions (earth is rotating and sun is the center of the solar system), but it is equally valid to accept the earth as stationary and the center of the solar system. You have to think about this. We can not tell one way or the other. The only reason you believe the earth is rotating and the sun is the center of the universe is because that is what science has brainwashed you with. Any real scientist can make the same model work perfectly well with a stationary earth in the center of the solar system.

          • Adam

            “I think we are making progress! You admit that science is a system of mind control, and you are correct. But it is a far more extensive and insidious system of mind control than you could ever imagine.”
            Well, it’s probably not the progress you are hoping for. Science is mind control in the sense that it helps you control your mind. It helps keep emotion out of decisions that should be based on logic and data only.

            “You claim you have proof that the earth is a globe, but you know that the current scientific opinion is the earth is not a globe. Globe is old news, they changed it to an oblate spheroid long ago and more recently they changed it to pear shaped because it is bigger in the south than it is in the north. So now even the scientists who have studied these things do not accept that the earth is a globe. So we can say that certainly the earth is not a globe.”
            You can really only make that claim if you want to be pedantic. Yes, it is an oblate spheroid, by about 0.3%. That means it is 3/10th of one percent wider than it is tall. It’s polar radius is 21 km shorter than it’s equatorial radius. This is such a trivial amount that you would never be able to notice that visually, it has to be measured. And it is pear-shaped by 0.01%, meaning the widest part of the oblate spheroid is 0.01% lower than the equator. Again, this is really impossible to see with the naked eye.
            So you can make the claim that science no longer considers the Earth to be a globe, but it really makes you “nit-picky” and annoying. I’m going to keep on calling it a globe, because that is a familiar term, and the degree to which it is oblate or pear shaped is essentially insignificant.
            I’m well aware that none of this is new. Isaac Newton was the first to claim that the Earth was an oblate spheroid.
            You can read more about it here: https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/GeoLay.pdf

            “As far as photos showing the curvature of the earth from a balloon, they naturally use wide-angle lenses to take these photos and you may know that wide angle lenses introduce distortion that causes straight lines to appear as curves. So the curve is in the lens, not on the horizon. You can easily test this for yourself because ordinary commercial flights are at about 35,000 feet, that is almost seven miles up in the sky. That is much higher than your 1930s balloon and you can see, if you just look out the window, that the horizon rises up to your eye level and is perfectly flat all the way around 360 degrees.”
            Nope. You are wrong again. Explorer II reached 72,395 feet. That is significantly higher than any airliner regularly flies.
            Some lenses distort, but not all. We have GoPro to thank for this. In an effort to give a larger image to consumers, they opted for fisheye lenses which introduce distortion. If you knew more about fisheye lenses, you would know they only introduce distortion if the object being viewed is away from the vertical center of the lens. So for weather balloon shots of the Earth’s curvature, as the horizon approaches the top of the frame, it is distorted to bulge upward in the middle (convex), and as it approaches the bottom of the frame it is distorted to bulge downward in the middle (concave). But when the horizon is in the center of the lens, there is little or no distortion.
            Here is a decent capture showing the curvature: http://spaceweather.com/images2014/13feb14/ShireeSchade2.jpg?PHPSESSID=hp9sbtjhuufddb7afhf9qecuu6 In that, you can see the top of the rectangular picture frame is distorted, with the center bulging upward. The bottom of that same picture frame is curved oppositely, with the center bulging down. This distortion is induced by the fisheye lens. That lens is creating an artificial curvature. I expect you agree with me on that. Note that Earth’s horizon is near the middle of the screen, and is clearly curved. Some of that curve is due to the lens, because some of the horizon is above the centerline (in the middle of the picture). However, it is clear that not all of that curvature is caused by the lens. The right side of the horizon is below the centerline. So the curvature on the right is actually being reduced by the lens distortion. However you can see that the Earth has the curve one expects from a globe.
            Now that I have presented you with what SHOULD be adequate evidence, I’m sure you will claim that the picture is photoshopped, and refuse to accept it as legitimate. To that, I can only say that you need to send your own camera into the upper atmosphere and gather the evidence you need to prove me wrong! You can get balloons capable of such flights for under $200 online. The entire rig ought to be less than a thousand dollars.
            Which brings up a question: Why don’t flat-earthers do this more often? The answer is that they do, but very few of them show their footage because it contradicts their beliefs. They assume that something was wrong with the camera, and plan on doing another launch, which they never get around to (because cognitive dissonance hurts). Some release their footage, but never all of it. They “cherry-pick” single frames or short sequences of video, and claim that proves the Earth to be flat. And some realize that they have created data that contradicts their beliefs, and adjust their beliefs to fit the new evidence. People in that last group are the only honest ones of the bunch.

            “As far as NASA, presumably you are aware they faked the Apollo manned moon missions? I think now almost everyone is aware of that? If not there is plenty of information on the internet and you can easily educate yourself on that. So NASA is mostly fake. And because so much of what NASA put out is fake everything they say and do is unfortunately totally discredited. It’s amazing. In December last year I visited the Johnson space center with a list of questions I wanted to ask some authoritative person in NASA in regard to the moon missions and I spoke to so many of them there but I did not meet even a single NASA employee who was convinced they ever sent men to the moon. So nowadays thoughtful people know that NASA faked the moon missions. They may not come out openly and say it, but it is obvious. We don’t know how to send men to the moon now, in 2018, so obviously we did not know how to send men to the moon in 1969…”
            NASA did not fake the Apollo moon missions. I’ve researched this at length, and all of the claims that those missions were faked is based on either a misunderstanding of basic physical laws, or are outright lies. Joe Rogan used to think the moon landing were faked. He no longer believes this because he did more research and realized he was wrong.
            If you can provide data that shows they faked the moon landings, I will research it and get back to you.
            We DO know how to send people to the moon. We have done it six times.

            “If they could take pictures of the globe floating in space we would have it, but for some reason we don’t have it. Whenever NASA puts out an occasional picture of the globe it turns out to be a creation of Photoshop.”
            “Earthrise” (Photoshop did not exist in 1968, and this image has never been proved to be fake): https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/297755main_GPN-2001-000009_full.jpg
            Himawari 8 satellite: https://himawari8-dl.nict.go.jp/himawari8/img/D531106/1d/550/2015/07/07/015000_0_0.png Here is it’s live feed: https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

            “Anyhow there is no point discussing this here. Every thoughtful person who has looked into it knows that NASA faked the moon missions.”
            Nope. In fact, the opposite is true. Every point made by moon-hoaxers have been disproved. There is no logical reason to think the moon landings were falsified. If you have one such point, please reply with it, and I will show you how it is wrong.

            “That is the problem really, we have no proof that the earth is a globe, it is only a theory. And as I mentioned now even scientists don’t accept it as a globe, they now think it is pear-shaped…”
            Again, you are using the word “theory” wrong. When you use it like that, you are saying the globe model has been thoroughly tested and has passed all tests. Seriously, find a dictionary, and look up the word “theory”.

            “As far as science and mind control, every scientific person MUST accept the ‘scientific method’. They must voluntary imprison their minds in the small box that science allows them to exercise mental speculation within. And yes, science will permit them to speculate, to critique existing theories and to propose new ones, but only within the very limited scope of the small box they imprison everyone within.”
            Yes, every scientific person must accept the scientific method. That is where we only accept things to be true if we can test them repeatedly, and all of the test produce the same result. The scientific method is great. It has improved the lives of everyone on Earth.
            There is no limit to what science allows speculation upon. Like I said before, you can propose any model you like, but you must provide data that supports your new model. This is something that you have not been able to do.

            “You can not question the basic tenants of science. For example a basic tenant of science is evolution. So you can not question evolution. Evolution presupposes a gradual development of species from primitive to highly developed over a long period of time. But this is not supported by the fossil record. They are always finding highly developed humans in ancient times, long, long, before humans were supposed to have evolved. So because this challenges their evolution theory, they suppress this evidence, they hide it, they destroy it. Scientists know that if they discover anything that challenges any basic tenant of science that they should not publish it. But if they do publish it they will be discredited, they will be sacked, they will loose their funding, etc, etc.”
            You absolutely CAN question the basic tenets of science. Nobody is stopping you. You might have a teacher that tells you “evolution cannot be questioned”, but that is just a person. That is not “science” denying you. A ‘frustrated old professor that doesn’t want to deal with your lack of evidence’ is not the same as ‘science oppressing you’. Science requires you to provide data to back up your claims. If you do not have data to back the claim, then your model must at least not be contradicted by existing, verifiable data. So if you don’t like evolution, that’s fine. But you ought to have a way to explain the incredible collection of fossil records that support the theory of evolution. Here are a number of skulls that have been unearthed: https://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg

            “So, these days, every scientist is employed, he has a master and he has to serve his master by providing the results his master demands.”
            This is false, and exposes that you have a gross misunderstanding of how science works. I’ll agree with you that Monsanto has researchers that are working to prove that their product is safe. But if you think that their competitors aren’t working to prove that Monsanto is UNSAFE, then you are incredibly naive.

            “This has always been the nature of science. Every scientist believes in something. Every scientist is trying to prove his theory, not for the sake of increasing the knowledge of mankind, not for the sake of knowledge, no. He wants to become a famous scientist, he wants recognition, he wants money… So the science is irrelevant. For whatever reason he is trying to prove something and he will cheat to do it. He looks for things that can be presented as proof for his theory and he ignores things that may not favorably reflect on his theory.”
            Wanting money or fame for a major scientific breakthrough does not automatically invalidate your data. It seems like you just claimed that everyone who wants fame or money is also a cheater or liar. Do you really believe this?
            To debunk your idea that scientists falsify data to prove a hypothesis or theory: other researchers that are working on the same thing will go to incredible lengths to show that the first scientists falsified data. They would be foolish to NOT try to disprove the first scientist. If you think that competitors will just give up on years of research without at least CHECKING the data, then your are incredibly naive.

            So your man in the balloon in 1930 with his camera was trying to prove the earth was a globe. So he used a wide-angle lens and in this way cheated and showed everyone the photos, proving that the earth was a globe with his bogus photo, knowing well that no one else was going to go up there in a balloon and check it. And even if a scientist did go up and look he would never blow the whistle. Because that would be against the primary principle of science. [Never discredit any of the established scientific principles…]
            You cannot honestly make this claim. You have no evidence that he used a wide-angle lens. You have no evidence that he cheated. To propose that an image is fake, you MUST provide data supporting your proposition. If you are not able to provide data to support your claim, you should not claim that someone else falsified data. That is incredibly dishonest.

            “So of course we could write volumes on this but I think you get the point. I am very happy that you have admitted that science is nothing more that a system of thought control that cripples and disables any intelligent and thoughtful person who is unfortunate enough to be consumed by it.”
            Don’t put words in my mouth, that’s just childish. I said no such thing, and if you claim that I have, your are being disingenuous at best, and lying at worst. Science is a system of thought control that enables a person to solve problems by ensuring that reproducible tests dictate the models that we use to describe how things work. It is a way of controlling your thoughts. When data shows those models to be wrong, we update the model to account for the new data, or we discard that model and work on a new one.

            “As far as your confidence that our universe is heliocentric. I have mentioned before it is all relative and we are within the system and all we can perceive is the relative motion of the other heavenly bodies to Earth. So it is just mathematics. You can select any of the heavenly bodies and presume that is stationary and calculate everything on that basis using the exact same globe earth model that we use. It is just that you are accustomed to accepting the sun as the central point. That is just an arbitrary choice. You can choose the earth as the central point and apply exactly the same model and everything will still work.”
            Nope. With Earth as the central point, many things fail to work. I asked you to devise a geocentric model that allows for retrograde motion, and you refused to provide one. At this point I take your refusal as evidence you cannot create such a model, and cannot even find one created by someone else.

            “The only reason you believe the earth is rotating and the sun is the center of the universe is because that is what science has brainwashed you with. Any real scientist can make the same model work perfectly well with a stationary earth in the center of the solar system.”
            Name one. Come one… I’m directly challenging you! Provide ONE geocentric model that accounts for retrograde motion. I’ll even make it easier for you: you can simplify the model to include only Earth, the sun, Mars, and the distant starts (since they are required to show the motion of Mars). I’ll be waiting, but I know you won’t provide anything. You will just ramble on about Rahu and other unfalsifiable things.

          • madhudvisa

            Hi Adam

            You are a representative of science, and I am completely familiar with science. And you do not take any notice of the points I make that are quite valid but are outside the limits of the box you are constrained by with science. I have made many such points but you just ignore them. You believe that only a model with the sun in the center will work. But you are not able to exercise your mind to see that we are in a relative system. We perceive relative movement in the sky and science presumes that is caused by the rotation of the earth. It could also be caused by the rotation of the heavenly bodies around the earth. Just think about this. It could be either way. And what we experience would be identical. It is not possible for us to tell the difference between the earth rotating and the heavenly bodies rotating around the earth. It could be either way. We don’t know.

            So we have simply arbitrarily chosen to decide the earth is rotating.

            As far as the retrograde motion of the planets that can be explained in the same way if the earth is rotating or if the heavenly bodies are rotating around the earth. As I said before it is mathematics. You may not be able to do the mathematics yourself, as you could not come up with any of these explanations you are giving me yourself, presuming a geocentric solar system, but it can be done. No scientist will ever do it of course, because they are locked in the tiny box of science and are not permitted out of that box. They have to always assume the earth is rotating.

            In spite of all the evidence you just blindly believe in NASA. You have to realize we can not send men to the moon now, we do not know how to send men to the moon now. NASA people will openly tell you that if you ask them. They say there are many yet unresolved problems that prevent us sending people even out of low earth orbit. Because there is deadly radiation up there, and they can not build space vehicles with enough radiation shielding to enable the humans to get through the Van Allen radiation belts safely. So with our current technology it is NOT POSSIBLE to send people out of low earth orbit. That is why no one, except for the fake Apollo missions, claims to have sent men out of low earth orbit. Because they would be killed by the radiation. If you just research this you will find it is true.

            No other country either, has ever sent people out of low earth orbit. Only the USA lied they sent men to the moon. No one else has been prepared to make such a fabulous lie…

            The moon is a quarter of a million miles away, they say, and we can only send people up a couple of hundred miles in the sky. So no one has been above a couple of hundred miles. So how could have they gone to the moon?

            As far as Rahu it is testable and you can prove it or disprove it yourself. The earth is much bigger than the moon and much more reflective. So on the moon the earth in the sky is much, much, much bigger and brighter than we see the moon in the sky. A full earth on the moon would be like us having a full moon night with fifty moons in the sky. So very bright, everything clearly illuminated. So if it is the moon coming in front of the sun at the time of a solar eclipse, at that time the moon is experiencing a ‘full earth’ and the eclipse is only taking out a tiny circle of about 50-90 miles in diameter from their ‘full earth’. So at that time the moon will be flooded with light from the full earth.

            So during totality of the solar eclipse the moon will not be dark in front of the sun. We will be able to see the details of the creators, etc, easily, with our eyes. But if it is not the moon, if it is Rahu, it will be totally dark, because Rahu is a dark planet that does not reflect light. So you can test it yourself and determine if it is Rahu or the moon coming in front of the sun at the time of a solar eclipse.

            So there is no point just writing back pages and pages of just repeating the standard doctrine of science. I already know the doctrine of science and so do you.

            Our purpose here is to investigate alternatives to the current model. We are quite familiar, as are you, with the current model. Our purpose is to question the current model and see if it is possible to formulate a predictive model that works using different initial assumptions.

            As you know I fully accept and respect that the globe earth model is a very good model and it does make very good predictions and does explain most, you would say all, of what we observe. And there is no other working model that currently even comes close to the globe earth model in its ability to predict the operation of the system. No one even tries to make another model because science has managed to convince practically everyone that their model is not a model but fact.

            In this way the system of science has constrained everyone, so like you, they will never consider the possibility that some of the ideas of science may be incorrect, either completely, or based on faulty assumptions.

            So that is the point here. To question the current model. And you are coming in saying the current model is perfect and we should not question it. You just blindly believe NASA sent men to the moon, even though it is impossible for us to send men to the moon now. That is illogical.

            So anyhow there is no point just writing thousands of pages of scientific doctrine. Because I know that very well. Everyone know that very well. We are questioning it, we are wondering if some of it is incorrect, we are exploring alternatives…

          • Adam

            “You are a representative of science, and I am completely familiar with science. And you do not take any notice of the points I make that are quite valid but are outside the limits of the box you are constrained by with science. I have made many such points but you just ignore them. You believe that only a model with the sun in the center will work. But you are not able to exercise your mind to see that we are in a relative system. We perceive relative movement in the sky and science presumes that is caused by the rotation of the earth. It could also be caused by the rotation of the heavenly bodies around the earth. Just think about this. It could be either way. And what we experience would be identical. It is not possible for us to tell the difference between the earth rotating and the heavenly bodies rotating around the earth. It could be either way. We don’t know.”
            What points have I ignored? I believe that I have addressed every major point that you have brought up.
            I am not constrained in any way by science. The only constraints that science places on me is that I require evidence before considering something to be true. If you present evidence, I will consider it, and update my views accordingly. However, you have not presented any evidence. I’ve looked through our conversation, and I cannot find anyplace where you presented any evidence to counter any claim that I made. In a few places you present ideas, but no data. In those cases, what kind of notice should I take?
            You are correct, it could be either way: geocentric or heliocentric.
            In the heliocentric model, everything moves. Some move so slowly that we can usually treat them as if they are stationary. And we often do that, to simplify explanations, or when our calculations do not need to be very accurate. The most distant stars are often considered stationary when working within our Solar system. But the motion of every object is defined, and all locations are easily plotted, dozens and even hundreds or years into the future. That is why we can predict the retrograde motion of Mars, for example.
            In the geocentric model, everything moves EXCEPT for the Earth. But some of these objects appear to change direction from time to time. They always return to their regular path after a while. This is called retrograde motion. There is no explanation as to why those objects change directions. There is no explanation as to why Earth is not affected by the force that caused those objects to change direction. There is no geocentric model that can accurately predict retrograde motion more than a year or so into the future. The Flat Earth Society proposes a crude description on this page (https://wiki.tfes.org/Planets), but it falls apart when your add more than one planet to their model. This is a major shortcoming, and one of the primary reasons that research into the geocentric model was abandoned centuries ago.
            You have claimed that “nobody has put serious effort into the geocentric model” That is patently false. The Greeks first modeled a geocentric system at about 550 BC. Later, in the second century AD, Ptolemy put incredible effort into his geocentric model. But to be fair, his model isn’t truly geocentric. In his model, everything except Earth, orbited a point that was a little bit away from Earth. But his model was so good, that it was over a thousand years before anyone could find serious faults in it. In fact, it is so good that modern planetariums use projectors that are loosely based on his work. It has only been the last 400 or so years that the heliocentric model has been preferred. By the 1600’s, with the invention of the telescope, we could observe celestial objects with an accuracy that the geocentric models could not explain. So that was over 2,000 years of work on the geocentric model, and only about 500 years of the heliocentric model.
            With the telescope, Galileo was able to observe the orbits of Jupiter’s moons. These were the first things proved to not orbit the Earth. That instantly broke his mind out of the shackles placed on him by the geocentric model. Now he was able to consider other possibilities, like other things that may not be orbiting Earth. But the heliocentric model still did not work well. It wasn’t until Kepler (later in the 17th century) hypothesized elliptical orbits that the heliocentric model produced accuracy greater than the geocentric model. Now we had a system that was simpler, and more accurate. But we did not understand why the planets orbit like the system predicted. That’s where Newton and the law of gravity come into the model. Newton’s mathematical description of gravity aligned perfectly with Kepler’s elliptical heliocentric model.
            Your lack of reference to any of these shortcomings makes me think that I understand the geocentric model better than you do.

            “So we have simply arbitrarily chosen to decide the earth is rotating.”
            No. There was nothing arbitrary about it. When it was initially proposed, dozens of scientists were imprisoned by the Roman Catholic Church. Some were tortured or even killed when they claimed that the Earth was rotating. But you probably think they were “in on it”, and part of the conspiracy. You probably think they decided to keep up their lies because it was gonna be a sweet payoff in the end. In your mind, those guys probably thought “It’s worth it to burn at the stake, in order that one day people will be ignorant of the Bible!”
            When parallax was discovered, it made the geocentric hypothesis so complicated that a single model could no longer be created that explained all the observed motions. So they started making models for each category of object. But as they observed more accurately the motions of the planets, they could not even include all of the planets into a single model.
            So they made a model for each planet. That worked for a while, but after a few years, those models differed more and more from observation, so they had to be adjusted. Eventually, they realized that they could only predict the motion of the planets out to a few years in the future. There was no geocentric model that worked in the long-term.
            I should point out that none of these geocentric models could explain why things behaved the way we observed. They just modeled the motion, and could not explain thinks like “Why don’t the planets orbiting Earth fly away?”
            Meanwhile, the geocentric model for distant stars continued to work well. They only had to devise an explanation for seasonal retrograde motion, and they only had to do that for stars near the Solar plane. This lead to a set of fixed stars, and a set of mobile stars. They thought the fixed stars were proof that God created part of the heavens as immutable, and the mobile stars were just fun to look at. And then the supernova of 1604 happened, and showed that the fixed stars were not immutable. So they had to rethink that. Still, in the early 1600’s, most astronomers believed a geocentric model. They just couldn’t assemble one.

            “As far as the retrograde motion of the planets that can be explained in the same way if the earth is rotating or if the heavenly bodies are rotating around the earth. As I said before it is mathematics. You may not be able to do the mathematics yourself, as you could not come up with any of these explanations you are giving me yourself, presuming a geocentric solar system, but it can be done. No scientist will ever do it of course, because they are locked in the tiny box of science and are not permitted out of that box. They have to always assume the earth is rotating.”
            So, you’re saying you cannot do it. Not only that, but NO OTHER FLAT EARTHER IN THE ENTIRE WORLD CAN DO IT! So, not a single one of you is smart enough to do the math. I understand now. Thank you.

            “In spite of all the evidence you just blindly believe in NASA. You have to realize we can not send men to the moon now, we do not know how to send men to the moon now. NASA people will openly tell you that if you ask them. They say there are many yet unresolved problems that prevent us sending people even out of low earth orbit. Because there is deadly radiation up there, and they can not build space vehicles with enough radiation shielding to enable the humans to get through the Van Allen radiation belts safely. So with our current technology it is NOT POSSIBLE to send people out of low earth orbit. That is why no one, except for the fake Apollo missions, claims to have sent men out of low earth orbit. Because they would be killed by the radiation. If you just research this you will find it is true.”
            The Van Allen belts ARE deadly… if you spend enough time in them. The way to deal with this is to just go around them. That’s what the Apollo missions did. They flew through the thinnest and weakest areas of the Van Allen belts, which minimized their exposure. Oh… you apparently did not know that the Van Allen belts were not uniform in thickness and density. Apparently you have not done enough research to speak authoritatively on this subject.

            “No other country either, has ever sent people out of low earth orbit. Only the USA lied they sent men to the moon. No one else has been prepared to make such a fabulous lie…”
            Correct, no other country has sent humans through the Van Allen belts. But they have sent probes to the moon and other planets. Japan and India each have lunar orbiters that took pictures of the Moon. And each of those were able to take photographs of the Apollo landing sites.

            “So during totality of the solar eclipse the moon will not be dark in front of the sun. We will be able to see the details of the creators, etc, easily, with our eyes. But if it is not the moon, if it is Rahu, it will be totally dark, because Rahu is a dark planet that does not reflect light. So you can test it yourself and determine if it is Rahu or the moon coming in front of the sun at the time of a solar eclipse.”
            You can see features on the moon during a TOTAL solar eclipse, but not an ANNULAR solar eclipse. The reason for this should be obvious, so I won’t go into it.

            “Our purpose here is to investigate alternatives to the current model. We are quite familiar, as are you, with the current model. Our purpose is to question the current model and see if it is possible to formulate a predictive model that works using different initial assumptions.”
            Correct. I started this off by correcting a few things that you had posted that were wrong. If we are going to have logical discourse of alternate models, we have to use correct data. Go back and reread my first post. There were several things you said that were false. I wanted to get those false claims corrected. I was very cordial in that post.

            “As you know I fully accept and respect that the globe earth model is a very good model and it does make very good predictions and does explain most, you would say all, of what we observe. And there is no other working model that currently even comes close to the globe earth model in its ability to predict the operation of the system. No one even tries to make another model because science has managed to convince practically everyone that their model is not a model but fact.”
            There are people that try to make other models. Flat Earthers will even sell you these models: https://www.google.com/search?q=model+of+the+flat+earth&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS796US796&source=lnms&tbm=shop&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiF4vzypIvbAhUJ24MKHTE6D1cQ_AUIDSgE&biw=1670&bih=909

            “In this way the system of science has constrained everyone, so like you, they will never consider the possibility that some of the ideas of science may be incorrect, either completely, or based on faulty assumptions.”
            Aah, but I have considered other models. I have actually done a LOT of research into geocentrism. But it has too many flaws to be taken seriously. Once someone knows all of the facts, the only possible reason to adhere to a geocentric model is because of religion.

            “So that is the point here. To question the current model. And you are coming in saying the current model is perfect and we should not question it. You just blindly believe NASA sent men to the moon, even though it is impossible for us to send men to the moon now. That is illogical.”
            Never once did I say the current model is perfect. Can you point out a place where I say it is perfect? If no, then you just lied. And never once did I say we should not question it. In fact, several times I said we are free to question it. And more than once I said that if you present evidence that conflicts with heliocentrism, I would adjust my views accordingly.

          • madhudvisa

            Hi Adam

            As far as the mistakes you say I made please provide me with a bullet-point list of them and I will consider the points and correct if necessary.

            Yes. Of course. You have nicely described the history of the model of science evolving from geocentric to heliocentric.

            And yes. The discovery they could explain retrograde motion of the planets more simply on the heliocentric model made it logical for scientists to choose the heliocentric model over the geocentric model. I am aware of that and accept the heliocentric model does appear to more correctly predict the observations we make.

            But we should not forget it is a model also. Not necessarily reflecting the operation of the system. If we start believing the heliocentric model is an actual description of the system and believe in it religiously then we are really no different from the Flat Earthers. Flat Earthers believe the earth is flat, but can not present any model that works presuming the earth is flat. Yes. As you point out they come up with some flat earth models but none of them predict the observations we very easily make. They can not even predict the observed occurrence of day and night on Earth. So this is perhaps the most basic thing, but their models all totally fail in this regard and in practically every other regard. But they ‘believe’ the earth is flat, even though they have no valid working model that shows how the earth could be flat.

            Scientists are better than flat earthers in that they have a working model to backup their beliefs. So scientists can demonstrate quite convincingly how their globe earth model is consistent with most of of the observations we can make.

            But perhaps it is possible to create a valid working model with the assumption that the earth is flat? If that was possible then actual scientists would have to consider it. And they would have to compare the accuracy of the predictions made by the globe earth model with the accuracy of the predictions made by the flat earth model. And as in the past they rejected the geocentric model and replaced it with the heliocentric model, because that made better predictions, they would have to replace the globe earth model with the flat earth model, if that made better predictions.

            So I think we can agree on these points, of course there is no flat earth model that makes any accurate predictions at all, so currently it is a theoretical idea only. Currently the globe earth model is very developed and makes very good predictions generally.

            I am considering a third model which you can read about at:

            https://flatearthfacts.com/vedic-model/universe-according-srimad-bhagavatam/

            Now this is really a radically different model, it is not heliocentric or geocentric. Earth is stationary and heavenly bodies are rotating around the polestar. And there are huge mirrors in the system also. So what we see in the sky, according to this model, may not be actually where it appears to be. We may be looking at reflections in mirrors…

            Of course this model is very foreign to us, and I can not clearly understand it at present, but I suspect it is correct and suspect that the actual system that works the universe is quite different from what we have imagined.

            So yes, globe earth model is the best model we have at the moment, it has been honed and tweaked to give quite accurate predictions, but there is no guarantee it is a reflection of the actual operation of the universe.

            As I have previously said we have very little ability to observe the actual system from our perspective here on earth. So many things we can not see. So we do not have much information on the system, therefore our theories and models of how it is working are bound to be imperfect.

            So we have to remember that science is an imperfect process. It is based the observations of our senses and our ability for mental speculation. And we are all imperfect. We have imperfect senses. What we perceive through our senses is incomplete and not necessarily a correct representation of the system, we are illusioned, it means we accept things to be facts which actually are not true, we make mistakes and we cheat to try to establish our theories.

            So in this way science is flawed and every theory produced by science is flawed because of this. So we have to be careful about this and remember we don’t know for certain that the universe is heliocentric, we don’t know for certain that the earth is a globe spinning in space, these are theories, they are the best theories we have at the moment, but the actual system may be totally different from the way we imagine it to be.

            We have to keep in focus that these models are the results of the imagination of the scientists, they are not necessarily reality. And we have to keep our minds open if we want to advance science to the position where it is closer to reality.

            Science is constantly changing. Many old scientific ideas have been proven wrong. They have proven geocentricism wrong, or at least established that it appears heliocentrism is more likely than geocentrism, so we have to be open to the possibility that heliocentrism may also be wrong and may be replaced in the future by a model that more accurately reflects the actual system.

            So our effort here is to investigate the alternatives to the currently accepted model. And that is valid. So far all you have done is to preach the doctrine of science in regard to the existing model. That is not the way forward. If we are to advance we have to accept what we know now is imperfect and could even be totally incorrect. To move forward we need to be open to replacing the current scientific models with more accurate models.

            I have not completely understood the alternative model:

            https://flatearthfacts.com/vedic-model/universe-according-srimad-bhagavatam/

            But I am trying to, and hopefully in the future I will be able to give you some ‘out of the box’ ideas you can consider.

            One idea I have already given you to consider is the possibility that the eclipses are caused by a dark planet, Rahu. That is the explanation of the eclipses given in the Vedic literatures, and as everything else in the Vedas is correct, I have no reason to think that its description of the cause of the eclipses is incorrect.

            So I have proposed an experiment to test if the solar eclipses are caused by Rahu coming in front of the Sun or if they are caused by the Moon coming in front of the Sun. And as moon is experiencing a full earth at the time of a solar eclipse it will naturally be illuminated by the earthshine and the features of the moon will be visible at least during a total solar eclipse. Now you have agreed with this because you have written back that the features of the moon are visible during a total solar eclipse, because they must be, the moon must be illuminated by the earthshine, if the theory that the solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun are correct.

            But in reality what comes in front of the sun at the time of the solar eclipse is totally dark. It is not illuminated at all. Now, about 15 years ago, when I first mentioned this, everyone always accepted solar eclipses were totally dark, and no one had taken any pictures of the moon in front of the sun. All the eclipse photos going back in the history forever, are totally dark. Now, since I have mentioned this, you can search on google and find many ‘photos’ of the illuminated moon in front of the sun during a solar eclipse.

            But the moon is not actually illuminated in front of the sun during a solar eclipse. The sun goes totally dark and you can not see the moon at all. So, on the face of it, this supports the theory that it is Rahu, not the Moon, coming in front of the sun.

            And the problem now is Photoshop. There are no pre-photoshop era photos of the moon coming in front of the sun. All such photos are creations of photoshop. And you know, scientists tend to cheat, if they truly believe in something, like if they truly believe solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun, and they make a big effort to photograph the moon coming in front of the sun, and the get a black circle covering the sun on their photos, there is a very great temptation to just superimpose a moon on there…. You know, that changes a typical photo of the eclipse into something extraordinary, which will be very popular, maybe make them a lot of money and make them famous…

            So this is the difficulty I am in at the moment. I have seen two total solar eclipses myself with my own eyes and can verify for sure that the moon is NOT visible. So that is inconsistent with the globe earth model. If the globe earth model is correct and the system is as we believe it to be the moon should be illuminated by the earthshine at the time of the solar eclipse. Of course believers in the current scientific model make excuses as to why the moon would be totally dark in front of the sun, but none of those excuses are very convincing. Fifty full moons in the sky above the earth would totally illuminate the earth, and that would be clearly visible from the moon, so the moon illuminated by the full earth, fifty times brighter than the full moon, should be clearly visible from the earth if it is the moon coming in front of the sun…

            So next time there is a total solar eclipse I am going to do some experiments and if I can photograph the moon coming in front of the sun, then I will have to accept that it is the moon coming in front of the sun, but if I can not confirm it then the question remains open.

            So this is one example of an experiment that can test the validity of the current model. And many other experiments can be formulated also. And we will do this. And in this way we will scientifically test the current theories.

            Your approach seems to be to think that we understand how things are working, and my approach is that, because of what I have read in the Vedas, I suspect that some things may be working actually in completely different ways to how we think they are working. So I am researching that.

            As far as NASA and the moon… We do not have the technology to send men to the moon now so we did not have the technology to send men to the moon in 1969. This is a fact. NASA faked the Apollo manned moon landings. All the evidence points to this fact. You have no evidence that man walked on the moon. You just believe NASA. As far as the radiation, they say it is less over the poles, so if you want to go through where it is less then you would have to fly out over the poles, but I am sure you are aware they blasted off from Houston, Texas, and the Van Allen Radiation belts are at practically their maximum over Houston. The reality is in 1969, although Van Allen was doing some research, it was not generally known that there was dangerous radiation up there which would kill astronauts if they went through it. So the designers of the Apollo spacecraft did not provide any radiation shielding at all. Nowadays we know that radiation shielding is required for spaceflight as well as for going through the Van Allen Radiation belts. So it is impossible. The Apollo astronauts could not have gone to the moon, they would have been killed by the radiation. They went up in low-earth orbit, which is all people have ever done.

            If we could send people beyond low-earth orbit we would have done it since. We have never done it. If we could send men to the moon we would have gone back. It is now almost 50 years and no one has even left low earth orbit during the whole 50 years? And no one has ever gone back to the moon?

            So it is a fact, NASA faked the moon missions, and you can not prove otherwise. There is no proof, even NASA do not try to prove it, NASA never defend themselves, they never try to disprove the critics. Because they know they faked the moon missions.

            If we had the technology to take people to the moon and bring them home safely in 1969 we would have developed that technology over the years and today travel to the moon would be going on routinely for at least scientific and research purposes. But NASA today say they can’t send men to the moon, they don’t have the technology, there are still many problems, including the radiation problem, that need to be solved, and maybe, perhaps, if they get a few trillion dollars, maybe by 2050 they will be able to send people to the moon…

            So it is nonsense. NASA faked the Apollo manned moon landings, that is what the evidence proves, and you will see this if you investigate it for yourself.

    • madhudvisa

      On Rahu. People, including scientists, are blind to things they don’t believe exist. They just don’t see them. Because of their faith in their theory they believe Rahu does not exist. So they can’t see Rahu.

      In reality there are many areas in the sky without stars. Rahu is the size of the moon in the sky, but dark, reflects no light, so we can not see it. If an area of the sky was covered by something the size of the moon and moved like the stars we would just presume there were no stars there and think nothing of it…

  3. Mike

    I’ve just read almost the entirety of the exchange here between Adam and Madhudvisa – I kind of skipped over the last posts a little because it became a bit frustrating and there was plenty of repetition. But it did serve to back up my hypothesis, which has sort of taken shape over the last few years..

    Hypothesis: it is impossible for one person to persuade another person of anything, at all, by whatever means, in a public forum. Every attempt fails, most lead to re-inforce the participants’ existing views and a substantial number create personal antagonism.

    • madhudvisa

      Hi Mike

      Yes. Of course you are correct in many cases. But the point of having a discussion in a public forum is not necessarily to benefit the person you are having a discussion with. That is why I have my discussions in public forums, not on private 1-1 emails, that is useless. But if I have discussions on a public forum, while I know that Adam is totally dedicated to the religion of science and can not see beyond the teachings of the high-priests of science, others will read the conversation and others will realize how weak his arguments were.

      And in any case it seems that Adam was defeated. He did not reply to my last reply to him, so I can only presume he has surrendered. Admitted defeat. Or maybe his mind has been opened a little more to the possibility that science does not have all the answers, and that many of the answers science does give are based on flawed assumptions and are thus incorrect…

      I do not accept the religion of science and I do not accept the religion of flat earth. The flat earth model currently presented by the flat earth people just does not work at all. They can not provide any model that explains our observations with the assumption that the earth is flat, science, on the other hand, does have a good working predictive model based on the assumption that the earth is a globe. So we can not blame people for thinking the earth is a globe, and actually to me it appears most likely that the earth is a globe… But the purpose of this website is to consider the possibility that it might not be a globe.

      So I don’t think the discussion with Adam was a waste of time. You have read it, and others have and will read it, and I think Adam’s questions and points were a good representation of the views of science. But there are so many points I made that he was unable to respond to, and just ignored, and when I asked him to provide a bullet point list of the errors he thought I had made he could not provide it, and when I challenged him that NASA manned moon landings were impossible now, and therefor also impossible in 1969 he could not counter that.

      So it may be that the earth is a globe, and if we can establish that for sure that will be fine. But we are not certain that the earth is a globe at the moment.

      Anyhow thanks for the thoughtful comment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *