Doubt that the Earth revolves around the Sun?

[Zzyzx]

.
Doubt that the Earth revolves around the Sun?

From a current thread:

.
..Still believe ancient tales about the Earth ceasing rotation? What sort of mental gymnastics and/or willful ignorance of physics and astronomy does it take to keep believing tales by ancients who thought the Sun revolved around the Earth?...

It would be nice to see real proof or evidence for that earth revolves.

I would like to say that I am surprised to encounter this sort of statement; however, that is no longer true after debating here for a few years and encountering such things at least occasionally.

Some (usually Theists) have also demanded proof that the Earth is spheroidal or that it rotates. Did they sleep through science classes? Does their “scientific knowledge� come from sermons and creationist websites? Even television evidently does better than that.

When such things are said I wonder if the person really, actually doubts that the Earth is a rotating spheroidal body that revolves around the Sun – or if perhaps they think that demanding proof of what is known or what they already know is a good diversionary debate tactic. When proof has been provided those making such demands usually disappear without acknowledging that they have learned something.


Is it incumbent upon debaters to provide proof or evidence of the spheroidal shape of the Earth or its rotation and revolution to those who do not understand or accept that level of knowledge?

[Neatras]

For some, belief trumps any evidence. It's led to some pretty hilarious crackpots going as far as to say that "California is definitely a barren wasteland. How could it not be?"

This was a curious claim: After the Fukushima nuclear meltdown, everything on the West Coast would be destroyed.

Rather than actually take the time to listen to reason, people have gone as far as to assert that a fraction of the United States has been reduced to a radioactive hell on earth, when basic scientific literacy would quell their fears, and an internet connection would allow them to communicate with the obviously still alive people living on the west coast.

[OnceConvinced]

It seems to me just a way to dance around the fact they have not good arguments to give to support their beliefs.

[Divine Insight]

Any theology that requires that what can be scientifically observed is necessarily false, would also necessarily require that its own God be deceitful and therefore untrustworthy.

Of course, in the case presented in the quote provided in the OP, this appears to be an instance where someone is merely proclaiming an extreme ignorance of scientific knowledge and how to make intelligent observations.

These scientific facts can actually be personally verified through commonly available telescopes, and a little bit of study.

It appears the claim being made by the "science skeptic" in this case is being made by someone who is either uneducated, or unwilling to take the time to actually look into things.

They must also necessarily believe that all scientists are in a secret conspiracy to fool the public on matters that the public could easily look into on their own.

If scientists were trying to pull off a "hoax" to fool us then every amateur backyard hobby astronomer who owns even the cheapest Walmart telescope would need to also be in on the "hoax".

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

As tedious as it can be sometimes, I think it is good to show that scientific claims are verifiable. The level of detail is where it can get tricky. Are they just wasting time getting you to show what they already know? Who knows, but it shows readers that scientific claims are based on actual data as opposed to the usual creationist/fundamentalist claims which almost never are.

For the case in point (does the earth rotate) this article presents a very simple experiment that anyone can do (or go find one that is already set up).

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang ... now-the-e/

[Zzyzx]

.

As tedious as it can be sometimes, I think it is good to show that scientific claims are verifiable. The level of detail is where it can get tricky. Are they just wasting time getting you to show what they already know? Who knows, but it shows readers that scientific claims are based on actual data as opposed to the usual creationist/fundamentalist claims which almost never are.

I agree.

A person who is sincerely interested in learning about Earth revolution / orbit (as opposed to maneuvering in debate) could rationally use any Internet search engine with terms “proof of Earth revolution� rather than asking to be schooled in a debate forum.

If wise enough to do so, they would encounter “stellar parallax� and “apparent planetary retrograde motion� (terms from astronomy). Pursuing those terms would lead to:

http://www.universetoday.com/47182/stellar-parallax/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax

http://earthsky.org/space/what-is-retrograde-motion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_ ... ade_motion

Both refer to distant objects (planets or stars) appearing to move in relation to more distant (“background�) stars when viewed from different points in Earth's orbit – then move back as orbit is completed. Opposite positions in orbit are separated by a maximum of approximately 200 million miles which causes the parallax or apparent retrograde movement.

A very simple demonstration of parallax is to extend an arm with thumb pointing up -- close one eye and then the other -- and notice that the thumb appears to move. Even though average human interpupillary distance is about 2.5 inches, the parallax (apparent movement) is obvious.

Stellar Parallax and planetary apparent retrograde motion are introductory astronomy and/or freshman college level. Of course that centuries-old knowledge can be “dismissed� by fanatical religionists in favor of supernatural “explanations�.

[Zzyzx]

.
Here is the latest "argument" do "debunk scientific evidence"

Question: Have you seen many of the photographs taken by the astronauts in space?

Using various stars in the background as well as our sun as a frame of reference, what do these evidence?

Yes, I have seen photos that are allegedly taken from space. But things are relative and by those photos it is really impossible to say does earth revolve, because it could be that the other things move so that it looks like earth is rotating.

Does ANYONE consider that a convincing argument?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

.
Here is the latest "argument" do "debunk scientific evidence"

Question: Have you seen many of the photographs taken by the astronauts in space?

Using various stars in the background as well as our sun as a frame of reference, what do these evidence?

Yes, I have seen photos that are allegedly taken from space. But things are relative and by those photos it is really impossible to say does earth revolve, because it could be that the other things move so that it looks like earth is rotating.

Does ANYONE consider that a convincing argument?

I provided 1213 with a video of and an explanation of how Foucault's pendulum physically shows the rotation of the earth, in the original string. Physical evidence is often far less persuasive then make-it-up-and-declare-it-to-be-true in the minds of believers however. Which is to be expected I suppose from individuals who prefer embracing an iron age view of reality over a modern 21st century view.

[Zzyzx]

.

I provided 1213 with a video of and an explanation of how Foucault's pendulum physically shows the rotation of the earth, in the original string. Physical evidence is often far less persuasive then make-it-up-and-declare-it-to-be-true in the minds of believers however. Which is to be expected I suppose from individuals who prefer embracing an iron age view of reality over a modern 21st century view.

In addition to the Foucault pendulum as evidence for rotation, we also have provided stellar parallax and apparent planetary retrograde movement to verify revolution.

Of course such things may mean nothing to people intent on dismissing or doubting what has been learned about the solar system during the past few centuries. Even the RCC accepted the heliocentric solar system by about 1800 -- thousands of years after it was presented by Greek astronomers and centuries after Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo had done their work.

I'm certainly thankful that I went to school, read non-fiction books, and actually studied sciences.