The Globe Earth is a Theory
The way scientists talk to us, the little people, you would think they know everything about everything and that they are teaching us absolute incontrovertible facts…
However, if you find an honest scientist, they will admit that all the teach is theories. And our knowledge on everything is imperfect. And as science has proven to be totally wrong on so many points in the past, they may be proven to be totally incorrect on things that today the general public assume to be facts.
Even on such basic points as the globe earth they have to admit it is not a globe, exactly. They say it is an oblate spheroid. Means a little squashed at the equator. And a bit pear-shaped… Bigger in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern Hemisphere.
So scientific “knowledge” is constantly evolving. Nothing is fixed and nothing is certain.
So what they teach us about the earth globe spinning in space and rotating around the sun and so on is all a predictive model they have created. Over the years scientists have developed a very good model based on the premise that the earth is a ball spinning in space around the sun and the other planets in our solar system are also spinning around the sun. So with this hypothesis they have been able to create a theory that does a good job of predicting a lot of what we see happening in the universe around us.
But again an honest scientist will admit there are still so many things we do not know, and so many things we do not understand. Even among the ranks of the scientists on many points there are differing contending theories.
However, at this point in time, we have to admit that the Globe Earth theory is by far the best, and really only functional valid scientific predictive model we have that does a reasonable job of explaining what we observe happening around us in the universe.
But because the Globe Earth Model does a fairly good job at making predictions that does not necessarily mean it is correct. At this point the flat earthers are unable to formulate a predictive model that can explain the most basic things we observe happening around us. They can not explain how we experience day and night in the way we do on this planet if the earth was flat. They show pictures of a flat earth with the sun and moon rotating above it but do not even do the most simple checks to see if such a system could predict the actual observable occurrences of day and night on the planet. This is a very basic point. Their model can not even predict day and night over the planet correctly… What to speak of anything else.
So at this point, as far as a valid scientific model, all we have is the globe earth. But everyone will agree there are inconsistencies which would indicate we do not completely understand how it is working and that we may well be incorrect in many fundamental assumptions that form the foundations of the Globe Earth model.
Heliocentric or Geocentric
Because of our position in the universe we can only observe relative motion. In a system like the one we find ourselves within we can accept any point as being static and measure all movements relative to that point we arbitrarily consider static.
There are two assumptions that have been made historically in relation to the Earth and our position in the solar system. The initial assumption made by virtually all ancient cultures and what actually appears to be happening is that the earth is in the center and everything is revolving around the earth. This is the geocentric assumption.
Later on some scientists introduced the assumption that the sun is in the center and the earth and all other planets rotate around the sun. This is the heliocentric assumption.
But there is no way for us to determine which assumption is actually correct. Because we are inside the system. So we can only observe that relative to the earth we see the sun, moon, stars and planets all moving in the sky. But we can construct equally valid models which will both give good predictions of what we observe by putting either the earth or the sun in the center. We have no way of determining what is the the actual situation so either assumption is equally valid. It is all relative.
Is the Earth Spinning or Stationary?
We see everything in the sky: sun, moon, stars and planets, all rotating around the sky once every 24 hours. This rotation we observe could be produced if the earth was a ball spinning in space, but also the exact same rotation would be displayed if the earth was stationary and all the objects in the heavens were spinning with some sort of giant wheel which rotates once every 24 hours.
So this is again a situation of being within a system, we can detect movement, we know that,relative to the earth, everything we see in the sky is spinning around once every 24 hours. But we have no way of determining if it is the earth spinning or if it is everything spinning around the earth.
Globe Earth theory Rests on Arbitrary Assumptions
The scientists who have formulated the Globe Earth theory have begun with assumptions they have no way of verifying. Globe Earth theory starts by assuming the sun is in the center of the solar system and the planets, including the earth, are all rotating around the sun. They presume the earth rotates around the sun once in 24 hours slanted on an angle and they very cleverly are able to give an explanation for the four seasons we experience by spinning the earth with its axis on an angle.
So beginning with these two arbitrary assumptions they work backwards, trying to invent explanations for the things they observe that do not appear to be predicted by their theory.
There are so many things. For example if the earth is rotating around the sun and the sun is 93 million miles away then after six months the earth will have moved almost 200 million miles to the opposite side of the sun. So we would expect that to cause a difference in our view of the stars. But when they discovered they could not detect any parallax at all, no evidence the earth had moved even an inch, let alone 200 million miles, someone came up with the idea that the stars therefore MUST be unimaginably far far far away. So they had to invent light years, one light year is the distance like would travel in one year, and put the stars so far far far away that even if the earth moves 200 million miles there will be no parallax…
So this is the way it works. But if the original arbitrary assumptions of the Globe Earth Model [rotating earth and sun at the center] are wrong then everything else is also wrong. If you make a bit and complex calculation with fabulous mathematical effort, but at the beginning of the calculation you made a basic mistake, the whole wonderful calculation will all be wrong…
16 Replies to “Globe Earth”
I don’t agree at all with your premise about the ‘arbitrary’ assumptions:
People long thought that the geocentric model was correct, but it was actually because of observations that the heliocentric model came into play. The observed movements of planets (sometimes retrograde) and moons were just not possible in a geocentric model. From there they continued to build their model.
There were apparently no ‘false’ assumptions, because they have later been proven. If the model had not worked, they would have had to go back and change their model, but it did work!
– We sent vehicles to Mars, based on calculations in a heliocentric model, and it landed fine, proving the model…
– Distance to stars has actually been calculated using the parallax, so your statement that there is no parallax is false. Bessel already measured this in 1838… Parallax due to the earth orbiting the sun has also been proven: they measured parallax between close stars and distant stars between January and July.
Yes. NASA’s Mars missions, they land on Mars, on your television…
ey buddy, I learned about this in like 8th grade science class. You can see Mars, for example, moving in a sort of C shape across the skies at night (when a planet is retrograde), meaning that your ‘geocentric theory’ is disproven. so yeah, get beat with facts and logic, peasant. Also do you believe that the moon landing is fake? Honest question, no malicious intent at all. I need to write about it in class.
Hi Yeetus. It is only a matter of adjusting the mathematics. You can choose any point as your stationary reference point and calculate the movements of the other points in the system in relation to that. Retrograde motion, yes, as I have said the current globe earth model may be correct and there are many things which it accurately predicts and there is no valid other theory that is anywhere near as good as
the sun-centered globe earth model.
So yes, retrograde motion of the planets is very nicely explained by sun-centered model, however it could also be explained in a geocentric model. However I admit there is no convincing explanation for geo-centric model at the moment like the good one for the heliocentric model.
My point is just because we have a good working model it is not 100% sure that the model is actually an accurate reflection of reality. Reality could still be different and our model could be wrong. But you are correct in that the heliocentric model does very neatly explain the retrograde motion of the planets and at the moment the geocentric model does not provided such a neat explaination.
As far as the moon landing is concerned it is obviously fake. There are many indications it was faked. Photos and video footage for example, they show so many inconsistencies, in so many cases they can not have been produced in the way they claim to have been produced, by men on the moon. There are so so many points and they have been very elaborately documented in films like:
For example, and many others describing the many real inconsistencies in the “man on the moon” story.
But these films do not cover the most convincing proof that we have not sent men to the moon. The best proof is we can’t send men to the moon now. According to the story we successfully sent groups of men to the moon, landed on the moon, took off from the moon, successfully linked up with the ship that was still up there orbiting the moon and flew back to earth and landed safely. This is an incredibly difficult task and it was apparently done successfully at least 6 times. So it became almost routine, sending men to the moon. So it means, if the story was true, that NASA had sorted out all the major problems with going to the moon and had developed a successful system for doing that.
But today NASA claims they can’t send men to the moon, NASA today claims it is currently impossible, not only to send people to the moon, but to even get people out of low-earth orbit. So you can see the problem. Something that was apparently almost quite routine in the 1970s has become impossible today?
This does not happen. When we have some technology to do something we have that technology. So if we don’t have the technology to send people to the moon today we most certainly did not have it in the 1960s. So it is quite obvious that the manned lunar missions were faked.
i like the photo of the back side of the moon in this article and elsewhere. The background earth is illuminated which indicates the sun is behind the camera yet the back side of the moon is apparently in the shade. Very interesting.
The back side of the moon is not in shade. According to the scientists the albedo, or the reflectiveness, of the moon is much much less than the earth. So when they make a picture like this they have to make the moon duller than the earth.
The back side of the Moon is also fully illuminated. The difference is that the Moon is grey and reflects only about 8% of the sunlight, where the Earth is multicoloured and reflects about 30%. So in the same picture the Moon is somewhat less bright than the the Earth, which on top of that also contrasts with the Moon as its background.
“Moon is grey and reflects only about 8%”
Moon is not grey. This is so much rubbish.
They have to say it because the “moon rocks” they brought back are grey…
See the problems you get into and the lies you have to tell when you fake a “men on the moon” story.
It seems to me no ordinary person walking the Earth has seen the far/back side of the moon. Certainly, NASA and their space agency compatriots in delusion from other countries have not either.
If you look at NASA images of the moon’s backside, supposedly taken by a satellite some million miles from Earth at some imagined LaGrange point, you will likely be amazed by the astonishing blandness of it’s representation. Apparently, the illustrator dashed the quickest most non-de-script rendering they could spew out. Not at all like the interesting design we see of the lunar face.
You’ll also likely notice the clouds don’t appear to move on the Earth as the moon supposedly passes in front of it. NASA’s cheesy renderings also limit their widespread public acceptance. Of course with 54 million dollars per day to play with maybe they’ll find better illustrators.
Yes. I agree, this is the most ridiculous rendering of the moon in front of the earth. I would expect something much more realistic than this from NASA. Seems they have not updated their space simulation systems for a long time.
You will note they have only ever published one video from this very expensive space telescope. So much laugher and ridicule about this one. What are they going to do now? They are stuck. This is it?
So they are not giving us any more movies, hoping we will forget this one I expect…
Assuming what NASA and hschuring said is true it certainly is a miracle that the color of the moon becomes bright cream and many stars are visible when filtered by the earth’s atmosphere.
It is amazing how global believers refer/ask us to look at NASA evidences…
Yet these are the very evidences we are questioning!! The sheeple are not getting it!
They are all experts because they’ve seen the pictures and videos from NASA!
“Earth is a globe” has nothing to do with the heliocentric model. The ancient Greeks already deduced from observations that the Earth had to be a sphere, but they also concluded (apart from Aristarchus, as an exception) that the Earth had to be the center of the cosmos, so they were geocentrists. Almost 2000 years later Copernicus suggested that the Sun was the center of the cosmos, introducing the heliocentric model. His model predicted a number of observations, that in the following centuries all proved to be correct.
“in the following centuries all proved to be correct”
Both Heliocentric and Geocentric are equally valid explanations of what we observe.
It is only religion that determines what you want to believe.
Currently they are sun worshipers. They want to believe the sun is in the center and the earth is insignificant.
Previously they wanted to believe the earth was in the center and significiant.
So we don’t know, both geocentric and heliocentric models are equally valid, we have no way of determining what is actually happening from within the system, it is just a question of selecting your reference point as the earth or the sun and calculating the other movements based on that.
Both work equally well.
“Both work equally well.”
If you consider failure to explain the retrograde motion of planets as evidence of equality, that’s a problem.
Yes. That is the supposed advantage of the sun centered model. They have a good explanation for the retrograde motion of the planets. But it can also be explained in the earth centered model. No one has explained that to you because they are sun worshippers and want you to believe we are rotating around the sun. That is the their religion.