Does FE have a way to determine astronomical principles like precession, the celestial equator, and the ecliptic? It seems to me that the round earth theory came about to explain all of the various astronomical principles that line up mathematically.
As in, you see a lot of explanations with FE that have to do with the curvature of the earth and stuff, but do they have an explanation as to how all of that fits into larger astronomical phenomena that are predictable, for example the 25,772 year precession cycle?
It seems to me that both flat earth and globe earth are trying to figure out models where tangible phenomena like that would make plausible sense but I’ve never seen a FE explanation of something like precession or why the celestial equator exists.
I never said I found the globe earth theory fully convincing either, but I’d also postulate that our current globe theory isn’t the same as older globe earth theories, so regarding your gif, yes I do think that doesn’t make sense, but that’s also our current model that is influenced by societies like NASA, and to me that’s just one theory in a litany of theories, just like flat earth is.
To say something like “if globe theory is wrong then so is precession and you gotta throw everything out with it” is disingenuous. Precession by a quick Wikipedia search was discovered, although incidentally, in the 2nd century BC. And ancient astronomers have historically been seen to get their astronomy knowledge from older civilizations like the Babylonians, so we’re talking a lot of time and a lot of astronomers to get to where we’re at. And most of that knowledge happened before the internet where people actually had to write papers and justify their theories with mathematics and real explanations.
Now, they may have believed in a geocentric universe too while also having plausible theories on precession and the celestial equator, I’m not an expert, I just wanted to know if FE had plausible explanations about this stuff.
As to “have a really dug deep?”, I’ve watched documentaries about it, nothing that I’d say I’ve retained super well. I find it interesting but I also just think it’s another theory, not law. So the idea that we’re being lied to about globe earth? Sure, I think that’s possible. But do I think that means FE is the only alternate explanation? No.
I’d probably be more inclined to seek the wisdom of ancient astronomers than internet people who get all worked up as if I’m a retard for not giving my entire life to FE. It’s just one of many different things to look into and it’s not one I care about at the moment beyond “huh I’ll watch this internet documentary” maybe once every 2 years.
Does FE have a way to determine astronomical principles like precession, the celestial equator, and the ecliptic? It seems to me that the round earth theory came about to explain all of the various astronomical principles that line up mathematically.
As in, you see a lot of explanations with FE that have to do with the curvature of the earth and stuff, but do they have an explanation as to how all of that fits into larger astronomical phenomena that are predictable, for example the 25,772 year precession cycle?
It seems to me that both flat earth and globe earth are trying to figure out models where tangible phenomena like that would make plausible sense but I’ve never seen a FE explanation of something like precession or why the celestial equator exists.
I never said I found the globe earth theory fully convincing either, but I’d also postulate that our current globe theory isn’t the same as older globe earth theories, so regarding your gif, yes I do think that doesn’t make sense, but that’s also our current model that is influenced by societies like NASA, and to me that’s just one theory in a litany of theories, just like flat earth is.
To say something like “if globe theory is wrong then so is precession and you gotta throw everything out with it” is disingenuous. Precession by a quick Wikipedia search was discovered, although incidentally, in the 2nd century BC. And ancient astronomers have historically been seen to get their astronomy knowledge from older civilizations like the Babylonians, so we’re talking a lot of time and a lot of astronomers to get to where we’re at. And most of that knowledge happened before the internet where people actually had to write papers and justify their theories with mathematics and real explanations.
Now, they may have believed in a geocentric universe too while also having plausible theories on precession and the celestial equator, I’m not an expert, I just wanted to know if FE had plausible explanations about this stuff.
As to “have a really dug deep?”, I’ve watched documentaries about it, nothing that I’d say I’ve retained super well. I find it interesting but I also just think it’s another theory, not law. So the idea that we’re being lied to about globe earth? Sure, I think that’s possible. But do I think that means FE is the only alternate explanation? No.
I’d probably be more inclined to seek the wisdom of ancient astronomers than internet people who get all worked up as if I’m a retard for not giving my entire life to FE. It’s just one of many different things to look into and it’s not one I care about at the moment beyond “huh I’ll watch this internet documentary” maybe once every 2 years.