Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

91 Excellent

About Anthem(0)

  • Rank
    Adv Member
  1. hey man, you took the bait, and I clearly explained what the math was actually describing. You have no counter to that because it is true. What exactly are you doing at this point? Is your only intention to make as many easily-disproven statements as possible and hope to get me banned or something for continuing to entertain these shenanigans? You certainly aren't even attempting to present any arguments. Cut this nonsense out. What point are you trying to make, or is that really your gameplan?
  2. Glad to hear, brother. That's what we're here for, to share what we've learned and to learn what others have to share in a mutual quest for truth and understanding. Most of us at least and certainly myself. It's probably a good thing you missed out on the total indoctrination while still in school. Consider it a blessing. The more emotionally-invested and enthusiastic one is in their own programming, the more difficult it is for them to identify it as programming and begin to challenge it.
  3. Math is no mere *****, Math is the Rahab of whoredom. Kingdoms are erected around this strumpet. From basic arithmetic to linear algebra and beyond, virtually every form of math requires WORDS to define the individual elements (symbols, variables, etc) of the equations, and DIAGRAMS (graphs, charts, etc) to EXPLAIN the relationships between these disparate elements. Without those words and diagrams, it is nigh impossible to EXPLAIN anything in mathematics. They are ESSENTIAL to understanding. This is such a tier-one basic principle in the understanding of mathematics it almost boggles the mind that he's ROFLing at the concept. As though he believes a complex or even a simple series of arcane symbols can be interpreted into a coherent framework without the words and diagrams. indeed at that thought. Internet posers with little understanding of the function of math are a dime a dozen these days.
  4. You're in over your head man. I'm sorry but you are. At least you're being a good sport about it. Big h or little H, the hypothetical milky way and hypothetical other galaxies have nothing to do with the math involved in the celestial mechanics of our solar system. When you factor in other stars and let alone galaxies, the entire mathematics of celestial mechanics breaks down and you only have about 1-4% of predicted motion accounted for....enter dark matter and dark energy (dun, dun, DUUUUUUUNNN)...two new nonsense theoretical physics hypotheses, complete with their own gobbledygook mathematics, designed explicitly for the purpose of correcting the gaping flaws of the previous nonsense theoretical physics hypotheses, etc etc, all the way back to the original broken and proofless theory of heliocentrism. Mmhmmm. And I suppose the earth moving through space at untold exponents of thousands of miles an hour being completely undetectable to not only our senses but ALL our attempts to scientifically measure this predicted motion makes more sense a road moving underneath a car? I think not, roamer. And notice also how you didn't even disagree that what I described is EXACTLY what Relativity is - a mathematical trick devised to make motions which are patently absurd in REALITY (eg: a road moving under a stationary car, an undetectable and unmeasurable moving earth, etc) mathematically feasible. But that's right, you don't wanna discuss things like that. Are you even trying to make a point at this point? I've answered every question you've ask in excruciating detail while you've outright ignored quite possibly every question I've asked (certainly 90+% of them). Even when I boldface, underline, and italic the questions, you still ignore them . It's actually rather comical watching it in action. It is clearly impossible to get you to engage in a serious debate thus it is increasingly impossible to continue taking you serious. Recall my initial comments in this thread about how arguing with your side is a complete waste of time because your side has NOTHING to bring to the table in defense of your broken model? You are proving the validity that assertion ever moreso with each post you make deliberately ignoring every single question I'm asking you in the post you are allegedly responding to. I'll try again: What point are you trying to make at this point? What is your argument exactly? What am I saying that you are disagreeing with and WHY are you disagreeing with it? Be specific. Revisionist history much? I did nothing of the sort. In fact, I illustrated clearly and succinctly that the math you posted validated everything I had said til that point: that the math not only doesn't require or even mention a curved earth surface, but that the actual math literally defines the surface from where we are "observing star positions"...as a flat plane. At which point YOU ridiculed that stating "that's called a horizontal plane, L2Math!" Sounding familiar? A mathematically-defined flat horizontal plane from where all celestial observations occur on the surface of earth... that means you proved my point for me. let's not get into a phallus-measuring contest over the ***** known as Mathematics. I know my math theory well and can hang with most anyone. But I don't need to credential myself or post extravagant irrelevant mathematical proofs in order to prove the points I've made in this thread. Most math is far better-explained using words and diagrams anyway. Besides, you're an uncomfortable-questioning-avoiding type dude which means you either aren't thorough in your input, your output, or both, which leads to unproductive math-heavy discussions in my experience. Either that or that you aren't taking any of this seriously in which case I have no reason to assume you would take complex equations any more seriously or display any more aptitude at addressing clear and relevant questions or forming cogent arguments (the latter being of supreme importance in math-heavy discussions). In either case that fish would be long-dead in the water before it came to anything. As for this thread though roamer, the only math you presented failed UTTERLY to fit the only criteria requested (defining a curved earth surface) and furthermore it directly proved my point for me. This was of course the objective all along. That's always what happens in these "debates": Your side waffles and equivocates until you actually produce something, at which point I succinctly (well, what qualifies as succinctly for me at least ) point out that the MATH ITSELF is clearly and inarguably defining every point on the surface of earth where the celestial observation takes place as a FLAT PLANE, which completely contradicts your side's curved surface assumption.. At which point your side either: realizes the obvious truth of this and concedes to no longer having any meaningful argument, or spends the rest of their time in the thread ignoring that their entire point was thoroughly refuted and continues waffling and equivocating, selecting singular irrelevant semantic sticking points and harping on them indefinitely...before quietly effecting an escape when the time is propitious. Roamer, you're a funny character. I'd say you're clearly not being serious but I do appreciate the effort nonetheless. It's occasionally fun to knock the dust off the old Debate-O-Tron 5000, even if it's just for target practice. I thank you for brilliantly embodying every assertion I've made here: Your side cannot defend your model, period, and you will go to comical lengths to avoid addressing this reality. You don't even try because you know good and well it cannot be done. Your side is simply incapable of providing a singular piece of scientific evidence for a singular tenet of your blindly accepted model, and this bothers your side not one bit. It's a wonder to witness. Your side doesn't understand what math IS (an infinitely-flexible tool), let alone what the maths involved are actually defining and how those definitions directly relate to the described motions. If you understood that, you would never have entered the discussion to begin with. You even asking me to show math was a clear sign that you were in over your head from square one. High horses notwithstanding, them's the facts as memorialized in this thread. Misplaced faith in the monogamy of mathematics with your preferred model has been the folly of many a would-be-intelligent layman. Math is perfectly indiscriminate in her dealings and will willingly submit herself to even the most absurd of demonstrably-false models -- eg: a spinning ball earth for which exactly as much physical or scientific evidence exists as it exists for roads moving at 60 mph underneath cars...ZERO...more accurately it's NEGATIVE because there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the exact opposite of these examples. We who actually know Math know this well. I won't go so far as to say you know nothing about math (hell, you may be great at the number-crunching aspect of it for all I know), but you've proven you don't understand the first thing about the math propping up your broken heliocentric model. Flat plane math man, plain as day. Hopefully you've learned something from this whole affair. I suspect not, but we can at least hope. You seem like a good enough guy even if you do avoid questions like they're contagious. Von is a slick one though. Gotta watch that guy! I think I actually like him now that I better see his modus operandi. Very slick, that one. Play it cool, stick and move, play it cool. I like your style Von. Very guerrilla warfare-ish.
  5. You don't even believe this yourself, but since you're insisting... 1. You're obviously still stuck on this phil plait quote, still failing to realize what he was even saying. Let's reanalyze Phil Plait's pointless strawman statement: "Those who use relativity say that geocentrism can be right and is just as valid as heliocentrism or any other centrism. That’s correct! But the problem is that using relativity by definition means that there is no One True Frame. So if you use relativity to say geocentrism can really be Geocentrism, you’re wrong. You’re using self-contradictory arguments." - bad astronomer Phil Plait According to what he is saying, there is no One True Frame, therefore Heliocentrism is also wrong for the exact same reasons as Geocentrism (according to phil plait). With this in mind, observe how easily I can flip his argument on its head and remain consistent with the mind-numbing illogic he is presenting here: "Those who use relativity say that heliocentrism can be right and is just as valid as geocentrism or any other centrism. That’s correct! But the problem is that using relativity by definition means that there is no One True Frame. So if you use relativity to say heliocentrism can really be Heliocentrism, you’re wrong. You’re using self-contradictory arguments." - Anthem No one is talking about one true frame of reference. This entire discussion was about kinematic equivalence of celestial motions between competing centrisms. Are you seriously arguing at this point that if the earth is motionless IN THEORY then kinematic equivalence is preserved, but if the earth is motionless IN FACT that kinematic equivalence is somehow not preserved? Please tell me I'm grossly misinterpreting what you're trying to say here. I don't see how I could be, but this cannot possibly be your argument so I'm hoping I am. I am not insisting motionless earth is a fact, I am correctly stating that ALL empirical evidence, ALL measurements, and ALL experiments in the history of science support a flat motionless earth and directly contradict a spinning ball earth. And MATH is not capable of proving anything to be factual in REALITY. If you wanna have a conversation about FACTS and REALITY, feel free to jump in anytime. You've intentionally ignored the entire REALITY angle for 5+ pages now, for obvious reasons. Don't try discussing FACTS at this point like they're somehow in support of heliocentrism or anything you've said in this thread. You haven't been remotely concerned about FACTS and wanted to have a purely theoretical discussion about the math of celestial mechanics as it relates to . I have no idea what you're even trying to prove at this point. You've been repeatedly disproven and countermanded at every angle for pages now. What exactly is it I am saying that you are disagreeing with and most importantly WHY are you disagreeing with it? Glib, one sentence responses aren't helping you illustrate any points you may be trying to make and they certainly aren't countering anything I'm saying. You've reduced your argument at this point to "phil plait said Big G Geocentrism is wrong because if you disagree with relativity you are a kook." C'mon dude, that is pretty lame you gotta admit, since exactly the same argument would necessarily apply Big H Heliocentrism according to this illogic. No One True Frame - phil plait. Big H is disqualified from being the one true frame just the same as Big G. Remember, kinematic equivalence and no one true frame. We started at that point for a reason. I've had this same discussion many many times before, and it always ends the same way. You must have realized by this point that all of your initial assumptions regarding the sanctity of math's monogamous bond with spinning ball earthism were just that...assumptions. Untrue assumptions at that. I hate to break it to you but Mathematics is quite the ***** and knows nothing of monogamy with any singular theory. A very flexible *****, Mathematics. Physicists KNOW this and use this knowledge to manipulate would-be-intelligent laymen into believing all manner of contradictory and inconsistent-with-REALITY theories. As far as Plait's constant appeals to relativity, that's because he understands very well what the Theory of Relativity IS: It is a mathematical trick which allows physicists to equate the REAL motion of a car moving at 60 mph atop a stationary road with the FALSE motion of the road moving at 60 mph underneath a stationary car. In REALITY, this is obviously absurd to HIGHEST degree, but mathematically it's fair game! Needless to say, at no point is it possible for these maths to determine a true frame of reference because its entire raison d'être is to obfuscate the true frame of reference. So of course according to relativity there is no true frame of reference. That was the literal REASON it was devised. All the experiments being performed at the time were showing the earth was completely stationary with a whopping speed of NIL, so it was necessary to devise a new mathematics in order to maintain the status quo. True story.
  6. I may have been hasty in my initial assessment. There is method to your madness Von. I approve. But planets will collide before I reduce my volume of words once the on-switch is hit. I'm allergic to the contemporary trend of twitter-length responses. I'm from the old school glory days of forums where thousand-word back and forth megaposts abounded. A dying art to be sure, the art of thorough expression of thought through the written word.
  7. But in REALITY when you get closer to the magnetic north (whatever it is), you can clearly see the sun "doing circles overhead", despite your protestations to the contrary. I'm not even sure what you're disagreeing with at this point. Mathematically, the frame of reference is irrelevant. Why not move it to where magnets seem to point? The models really do start to come together better once you start framing them in a structure which more closely resembles REALITY. My ultimate point here has been that math in no way proves heliocentrism and in no way does the math that "supports" heliocentrism preclude flat earth geocentrism. Most people don't even bother looking at the math to realize that it's all describing flat planes in a flat universe. They just assume that the false model overlying the math is somehow justified or even DESCRIBED by the math. In reality this is not the case, as I feel I'd adequately demonstrated without needing to resort to posting long strings of complex, uninteresting equations. Once REALITY is applied to the conceptual framework, heliocentrism falls completely apart, what with the total lack of measurable curvature and motion. THAT my friend is the elephant in the room. That and heliocentrism doesn't even include electricity in its model (since it wasn't discovered yet), which just further underscores how broken the model clearly is in demonstrable REALITY. REALITY is nowhere near as flexible as mathematics. It's a stiff old maiden in comparison to math which is an infinitely-jointed contortionist acrobat, capable of bending and twisting to whatever form the framework requires. REALITY spells the end of heliocentrism and the opening of a gigantic can of worms that even battle-tested wanna conspiracy guys often have trouble prying open and digging into. You're an enigma Von. Despite your underhanded methods (which are admittedly respectable in their own way), you're clearly intelligent enough to realize that heliocentrism is a broken model and furthermore that math isn't capable of proving the validity of any model, ever -- let alone a demonstrable broken one. You aren't sitting here stubbornly pretending that math is somehow on "your side and only your side" like many others would do in your shoes, which is commendable. If you don't disagree with any of the premises, then what's your beef with the conclusion that "math is just as capable of supporting a [REALITY-consistent] flat stationary earth as it is a [demonstrably untrue in REALITY] spinning ball earth"?
  8. You don't know the first thing about what these maths are describing if you think they are using spherical geometry to describe the shape of the surface of earth. That is what we're talking about, right? You aren't fooling me with this display. You could've just said you didn't understand the subject being discussed when we were still on the kinematic equivalence of alternate frames of reference. You've clearly played your hand. If you want out then go in peace, brother. No beef.
  9. Let's flip the question on it's head to further expose how weak the predictive power of their model is: What would the the landscape and horizon of earth look like from high altitude balloons...if the earth were a flat plane? Would any of it look different than it does now at those altitudes?
  10. It's the same exact model kinematically. This was the first thing established in this discourse. What that means is the frame of reference can be moved at will and the mathematical relationship between the disparate moving elements will remain intact mathematically. This is WHY geocentrism is just as valid a frame of reference as heliocentrism. This why I started at that specific point. You went on like you understood that then immediately started backpedaling about nothing, a condition you've been stuck in ever since. In the specific example of "the sun doing circles overhead a flat plane", this frame of reference has simply been moved from: the vague, nebulous, contradictory, mathematically-IMPOSSIBLE, admittedly-hypothetical singularity at the center of the "planet earth" in your dogmatic model of heliocentrism, to: the magnetic north of the singular flat plane called Earth (wherever and whatever that ultimately may be) Mathematically, it doesn't matter if the earth is a sphere spinning around the sun through a boundless void full of distant stars, or if the sky is a solid dome (or even a parallel flat plane located above our own terrestrial one -- these are all perfectly valid frames of reference that can be mathematically accounted for) rotating over a stationary flat plane and the stars are all more or less the same distance away: the same OBSERVATIONS of the stars can be mathematically accounted for. This is without even getting into things like the obvious lack of parallax difference between the sun and moon and the stars that are only a few light years away AND the ones that are many orders of magnitude further. Those are just throwing salt in the wounds of your dead model. If you doubt any of this, reference Mach's work on inertial mass equivalency. Everything I am saying are things that science KNOWS and can experimentally demonstrate, it's just the laymen that are ignorant. You already know all this I'm sure. Nowhere in ANY equation describing cosmological motion is a curved surface of earth required (and even if it was, that would just be another math conversion to make - that's what math DOES, it converts). And not only is a curved surface not required, it can easily be determined that all the relevant math is actually describing flat planes at every point on the surface of earth ...but like I've said, that can get into unnecessary complexity compared to the simplicity of moving the frame of reference from the imaginary center of a sphere (whose exterior is inexplicably mathematically defined by an infinite series of overlapping FLAT PLANES) to the semi-demonstrable magnetic north of the earth. In measurements of REALITY, where no curvature or motion is in evidence at ANYWHERE, the answer becomes even more obvious. But of course, neither of you want to go there. Let's keep it all hypothetical so you can tell me my demonstrable hypotheticals are mathematically invalid, offering no reasons whatsoever for this conclusion, while claiming (again for no reason whatsoever) that your non-demonstrable hypotheticals are the only valid mathematically consistent frames of reference that could describe our physical reality and observations of celestial motions above. And all this despite having already agreed at the start of all this that frames of reference can be moved and kinematic equivalency between the coordinate systems will be preserved. Amazing. If your argument is the celestial motions we observed can't just be rotating around some hypothetical point at the center of the sky, I hate to break it to you but this is exactly the same problem your model has. That singularity is hypothetical as f***, but the perfectly valid frame of reference of heliocentrism is nonetheless located appx 4k miles beneath your feet from any location on the surface, permanently out of view of any scrutiny or pesky testing. Remember, all cosmology is based on OBSERVATIONS OF CELESTIAL MOTIONS, all of which in your own model are moving more or less in a flat plane with each other. You aren't specifically disagreeing with anything I'm saying and you aren't offering any points of rebuttal. I've been clear on this from the start: Kinematic equivalency is preserved while moving frames of reference/changing coordinate systems. All the actual math in these equations explicitly describes the point from where OBSERVATIONS are taken as the center of a 2-dimensional FLAT plane (not a curved plane). Nowhere in these equations is a curved SURFACE required or even implied. It's exactly the opposite. The frame of reference for celestial motion in heliocentrism is located at an imaginary point in the center of the sun. In ball-earth geocentrism, this frame of reference is located at an imaginary point thousands of miles along the z-axis underground in the center of earth. In flat-earth geocentrism, this frame of reference is located at an imaginary point thousands of miles along the z-axis above the center of earth. In REALITY, no curvature or motion of earth has even been scientifically measured. All measurements have yielded a flat and stationary earth, which is the exact opposite of your model's prediction. But perfectly in line with a flat earth geocentric model. What about this are you disagreeing with? Give me something. Anything. Or admit that what I'm saying is obviously true.
  11. You did nothing of the sort. You linked a page on converting between horizontal and equatorial coordinate systems. You know perfectly well that is a strawman and not remotely what I was asking for. I'm asking you to show me the math that necessitates that the mathematical plane of earth be curved and precludes it being a flat plane (despite it being MATHEMATICALLY defined as such). If you can't do that, just admit as much and be done with it. This really isn't that complex. There are other approaches here. For instance, if you unfold the surface of your hypothetical sphere earth into a flat plane, where are all the planets, sun and moon located? In a narrow circular band ABOVE the plane called the ecliptic. The unfolding process is actual complex math to write out on a computer screen, but it's not that difficult to imagine in your mind. It's a 2-dimensional surface. Using the entire toolset of mathematics, would it be theoretically possible to convert your completely proofless hypothetical curved earth surface into a flat plane surface and preserve the kinematic motion of the celestial? Is it possible to answer "no" to this question? Didn't think so. Other angles to consider: Are the distances to the stars based on a spherically geometrical universe or a flat one? I'm assuming you understand what that means MATHEMATICALLY? I'm talking strictly math, not theoretical physics' interpretation of that math into a false model. As the vectors splay out from your hypothetical sphere earth, the distances between congruent parallel lines necessarily increases, yes? Is this increased skewing of the space as distance from the surface of earth increases reflected in the MATH of celestial mechanics as it necessarily would have to be if the math was actually describing a spherical earth, or does it instead infer that these lines remain parallel in the coordinate system? Basically, is the coordinate system mathematics as defined by mathematics FLAT or spherical in regards to celestial mechanics? Does a^2 + b^2 = c^2, or is a^2 + b^2 > c^2 in regards to celestial mechanics? And after all this, still not a single comment on your total lack of scientific evidence of a curved or a moving earth. Amazing.
  12. But I thought the plane was curved roamer? Now it's just flat at every point? Do you have any math equations that specify a requisite curved ground for celestial observations to be valid? Still waiting roamer.
  13. Indeed it has. And to be perfectly honest, it's the outcome I expected. I knew full well what I was getting into and I wanted to go through the motions anyway to put it on clear display for anyone paying attention. These people have NO ARGUMENTS in defense of their spinning ball model. They do not even TRY to defend it because they know it CANNOT be defended rationally. They have ZERO evidence of earth being either curved or moving, and they IGNORE this fact entirely as though it is somehow irrelevant when in reality it's the only thing that matters. They hide behind equivocations and appeal to terms like "science" and "math", but they have no understanding of these things. All the math of cosmological observations is done over a flat plane. Anyone who actually does the math knows this. They haven't. Anyone who's ever taken an astronomy course should be aware of this (since all the vector models you did were based on a FLAT universe), but it's not taught to you that way. And the cognitive dissonance of already believing it's a spinning ball BLINDS people to the fact that all the math they are doing is over a flat plane. The whole field of cosmology is smoke and mirrors. There's a lot of talk of these sorts of things behind the scenes in universities, but it never makes it out of the back rooms and onto the front pages or the classrooms. But behind the scenes, cosmologists KNOW there are serious inescapable problems with their model. But the pursuit of tenure is a powerful motivator to turn a blind eye. It's a sad state of affairs. But aye, the central point is these posers cannot provide any evidence that the earth is curved or in motion. They have no evidence that their broken model is true in reality, but they believe in it all the same. That really says all that needs to be said. This thread is a testament to that.
  14. right on queue, Von backs out after realizing there is no math requiring the surface of earth be curved for celestial observations to be valid (and indeed it is largely the opposite that is true). And he's done so under the guise that "she" (presumably me) appears to be "unhinged." This "unhinged" lingo is no different than the "conspiracy theorist" label authoritarian apologists employ when they have no sound rebuttals against their opponents arguments. Calling someone "crazy" who is soundly and methodically demolishing your points is a tried and true technique. We've all seen this before. Be good Von, til next time. It's been fun. Excellent. This is the clincher. Notice in the link you just posted that there is a picture showing the relevant mathematical relationships: http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~fv/webnotes/triangle.gif Here are other pictures showing the same relevant relationships: http://www.jtwastronomy.com/tutorials/images/celestial_coordinates_horisontal.png http://kjk176.tripod.com/AltAndAziExplan.gif https://www.cliffsnotes.com/~/media/1e0915c8bbba43e3aefc98c9c24266b3.ashx?la=en https://universe-review.ca/I07-09-horizontal.jpg As everyone can clearly see, the ground in all these pictures is a perfectly flat PLANE. Odd how visual mathematics would describe these relationships as taking place ABOVE a flat plane, no? Or is this the part where you equivocate that something else is occurring here? Like I said at the start, I can discuss this in as much depth as necessary, but it's been several pages now and neither of you are up to it, opting instead to pick and choose choice sentences you can pick at on semantics grounds. Thanks for playing guys, honestly. I appreciate your assistance in demonstrating my point roamer. I couldn't have done it better myself. On the other hand, I've been given a warning for calling you all t____s, so I guess I was able to help you all in your goals as well. And since continued interaction with people who are deliberately ignoring everything they can't address (such as there no being no scientific evidence that the earth is curved or in motion) will only lead to more warnings for me calling you out on these transparent tactics, I think that about wraps it up. My point is sufficiently proven. See, we were able to work together after all. You help me prove my point, I help you get a checkmark in your "successful" column. Symbiosis at work.
  15. Excellent dodge to cover your inability to provide math to support your FALSE CORE ASSUMPTION: that mathematics describing the observation of celestial phenomenon require a curved earth surface. If you don't have any math proving that the surface of earth must need be curved in order for the math to work (and you don't), then we're right back at geocentrism and my point is proven. I already know you don't have ANY math that requires the surface of the earth be curved in order for the celestial observations we make on the surface to be valid. You have NONE. I already know this! I know math pretty well, and like people that know math well, I know that it can be manipulated to prove almost anything. Yeah, the mentioning of the Brahe model is to remind you that motion of the earth is unnecessary to explain celestial observations made from the surface. All cosmology is based on observations made from the surface of earth. Nowhere in any of the celestial equations describing the motions of the heavens is a curved ball earth specified. And even if it was, the math would convert just fine between coordinate systems (it is a useful TOOL). Earth has a 2-dimensional surface, be it flat or curved. And observation and measurement of the surface measures FLAT...but of course, that's just an irrelevant triviality because you falsely assume that MATH somehow necessitates standing on a curved surface when making observations of celestial bodies. Math does no such thing junior. To be fair, this is probably the first time you've ever considered that this IS an assumption. But clearly it is. Undeniably so. The math doesn't require it (in fact, the math precludes it, but that's a rather complex conversation involving much math theory and proofs and you trolls are struggling as is), so what exactly is your argument here? What you do from this point is up to you. But you CANNOT show me one math equation which necessitates a curved surface of earth for the observations of celestial objects to be valid. And since you CANNOT do that, my point is self-evident: Math can be used to support a flat, motionless earth (for which tons of tangible scientific evidence exists) just as easily as it can to support a spinning ball earth (a demonstrably false model for which no scientific evidence of any sort exists). Show me a math equation that says otherwise...I'll keep waiting. As roamer has recently pointed out, there is no ecliptic in the spinning-ball earth model either! It's all a mathematical abstraction, remember? It's the completely imaginary circle wherein eclipses can ONLY occur. You two should compare notes. Why doesn't it describe things adequately Von? Be specific. Not if the earth isn't a part of that celestial system. The sun and the planets are a separate system from earth in this model and in demonstrable reality. After all, up is up, away from the ground. Ball or sphere, up/out is AWAY from the 2-dimensional surface of earth towards another system. We observe this celestial system from the terrestrial surface we stand on. All these celestial bodies (sun, moon, planets) move in a narrow band in our observable sky. The motion of THAT celestial system we observe is not in direct violation of anything. The mathematics of THAT observed celestial system is preserved, whether earth is moving or not and whether earth is flat or curved. And tests in material reality evince a flat stationary plane of the surface of earth. It should be obvious that the celestial system is separate from our terrestrial one, but Cosmology does it's best to try and hide these simple facts from otherwise-would-be-intelligent people. This is secretly the reason they describe galaxies and indeed the universe as a whole as being FLAT. I'm sure you'll disagree with this, but what you won't do in your equivocated appeals to authority is provide math that only works with a curved surface of earth. And you won't do this because all of it based on observations of the celestial system from our terrestrial one. Mathematically, the earth can be any number of regular shapes and the motions of the CELESTIAL ABOVE will be preserved. Whether you define above as "outward from an imaginary point in the center of earth and perpendicular from every point on earth's curved surface" or as "perpendicular from every point on the flat surface of earth", the math can accommodate. It wouldn't be a useful tool if it couldn't. And Von, at least you're honest enough to admit that there exists no scientific evidence of either a curved earth or an earth in motion. One up on roamer for sure, who appears committed to ignoring the point entirely, since it's the only point that matters in REALITY.