Dr. Danny Faulkner joined the NathanOakley1980 show and discussed the cosmology of the Earth, and admitted that the Earth as a globe was a model first and that calculations came later, apparently in an effort to justify the model. He was recalcitrant to explain how elevation angle measurements proved the globe. It appears he did not want to go there when asked objective questions about alleged proof that the Earth is a globe. This is a fascinating discussion that affirms again that globers do not have the science, the math, the geometry, or the trigonometry to prove that the Earth is a globe. What they have is theories unsupported by true science and only justified with pseudoscience.
The entire transcript follows the video if you would like to read exactly what was said.
Hi, I’m Nathan Oakley, and I don’t normally do an introduction to these videos, but in the case of Danny Faulkner vs Refracted Curvature this video started off as being 28 minutes long, and I’ve edited it down to almost half that because of massive protracted silences in between each response and question. So for your enjoyment this is Refracted Curvature vs Dr Danny Faulkner.
Danny Faulkner, good afternoon. Would you like to say hello?
I’m just listening.
Mr. Faulkner, would you say it’s fair to say that this discussion should solely be about measurement when you’re talking about the shape of something?
I just dropped in a minute or so ago, so I don’t know what you’ve been talking about.
If you’re going to discuss the shape of Earth it should only be about measurement. Now just for clarity, if you’re going to talk about the nature of reality you have to bring in other aspects like science and things of that nature, but as far as shape goes, measurement kind of dictates that. Do you agree to that statement?
No.
I’m sorry my daughter hit the button. Danny did you say that you disagree that measurement dictates shape?
Yes.
Could you expand upon that please?
Shape can be determined by a qualitative assessment. You can look at it and get a sense of what shape it has. Measurement will only give you ideas of dimensions of the object.
Absolutely, but to transmit the information of that qualitative assessment you need measurement don’t you?
No.
Then how will you describe something without it?
I know the shape of the top of my kitchen table at home but I couldn’t tell you what the dimensions are.
I agree 100%. But if you’re going to talk about the top of the table and how flat or bumpy it is you would need measurement. Then you would be quantifying something.
I was referring just to the general shape though the table can be square top can be square it could be rectangular it can be circular it can be oval. In fact I have three kitchen tables in my house: one is a rectangular top, one’s a circular top, and one is an oval top.
I’m not disagreeing, I’m just saying that you can’t see all of earth while you’re standing on the earth how else will you communicate the information then if you can’t see the entirety of it?
Measurements giving you a quantitative result is one way to do it, but it’s not the only way to do it.
But with the earth how else would you do it since you can’t see the entire thing to give the description?
You’re not going to like my answer.
Let him speak he’s a PhD, and we’ll give him that. Mr. Faulkner would you tell me what answer I wouldn’t like to hear. I actually do want to hear it.
The shadow of the eclipse of the moon is always circular. Again you’re not going to accept that answer, but that is a very qualitative assessment.
Okay yeah, I like that one. That’s a good one, because we’re going to apply our understanding of the celestial sphere to derive the angles to put the earth between the sun and the moon to get a shadow correct?
Yes.
Do you know how the celestial sphere was created?
Yes.
Would you agree that it is observation and measurement that created the celestial sphere?
Not so much measurement–it is just what we observe in the sky.
We don’t observe below the horizon because that is the demarcation point, so we’re going to apply measurement at some point, correct? To get the rest of the celestial sphere right?
Not necessarily. I mean measurements can be used, but the qualitative assessment is that the sky that we do see above the horizon appears to be a hemisphere, and objects obviously rise and set, and so the implication is that objects pass below that horizon giving you the other hemisphere below you.
I’m trying to figure out if I actually disagree with you up to this point. I don’t know if I do. I do know that the celestial sphere has a celestial refraction applied at a certain point above the horizon so we have to be talking about measurement at some point with the celestial sphere. You realize that, right?
Sorry I stepped out of the office for a moment. Would you repeat that?
We apply celestial refraction to the sky I think at 20 degrees above the horizon to conform to what we see through what we call celestial refraction, so there has to be measurement at some point. You don’t accept that?
We certainly can quantify these things. However, celestial atmospheric refraction is minimal. It’s about a half degree at the astronomical horizon and when you’ve mentioned 20 degrees by the time you get up to 20 degrees it’s extremely small, much too small for the eye to actually see.
Right but it is a variant that is applied up to a certain degree at which point it is no longer necessary to make what we observe conform to the celestial sphere.
Again atmospheric refraction is minimal. It was not really considered until fairly recent times. The celestial sphere is a concept that goes back more than 2,000 years, and I don’t believe refraction was considered at all until well after the telescope was invented less than 400 years ago.
Could you please repeat that I apologize.
That’s fine. I said that atmospheric refraction has only been considered for maybe 300 years if that long, and the celestial sphere goes back about 2,000 years before that, so it’s not necessary to consider celestial atmospheric refraction when developing the model, if you will, of the celestial sphere.
Oh no I agree with the refraction. I don’t know if I would call it terrestrial refraction, but I will say that the way refraction is applied is not applied the same way now as it was 2,000 years ago when it was first created. I agree to that but you’re saying that it has nothing to do with measurement creation of the celestial sphere.
No, there was no need for that. It was first a qualitative assessment of what the cosmology could be, and then later on there were measurements built upon top of that. To have [illegible] is 2,200 years ago. He wasn’t the first. There are people before him who were making measurements of stellar positions as well as the positions of the sun, the moon and the planets, and that’s where the quantitative assessment comes in. But it’s built upon the model of the celestial sphere, and originally the model didn’t require any kind of computation or measurements–just a qualitative assessment of what we see in the sky.
Well I don’t think that’s absolutely true. I don’t agree that you can create the celestial sphere without measurement because the first thing you have to do is take elevation angles to create the celestial sphere once you’ve adopted the model of the celestial sphere.
You certainly can quantify things with altitude and azimuth in other sorts of measurements, but the invention of that model doesn’t require any kind of quantitative measurements at all at the beginning. It’s simply what can you do and to build upon that model and make the model quantitative, but the model itself of the celestial sphere doesn’t require measurements to make it. So the model is expressing relationships between angles and celestial objects. You can use the model to do that, but developing the model originally didn’t require actually creating that. I believe the Greeks probably invented spherical trigonometry to be used on the celestial sphere, but they didn’t invent that until necessity of it arose with the model of the celestial sphere.
Well sir, you’re trying to tell us though that you have created a model without taking any measurements. Do you not see how that’s contradictory? I don’t think you quite understand what a model is.
A model doesn’t have to have particular quantitative aspects to it, particularly when you’re developing the model. Now eventually you can add those quantitative things, but the initial conception does not require that the kinetic theory of gases, for instance, is quantitative but the initial idea was not quantitative. That was simply an idea, and then they use the physics to develop that idea. So models don’t have to be quantitative at the very beginning. You bring the quantity in to quantify what you can measure with the model.
So you’re saying the model doesn’t have to be quantitative at that point, but you realize that until it becomes that, it’s just an idea and the modeling of itself is useless. The initial conception of a model in this case, the celestial sphere model, no measurement has been made but the conception of the model is to take measurements to figure out where you are. It’s whole raison d’être is to take a measurements from the real world, and apply it to the model to take something back out of the model to give you information again for the real world. Without the use of measurement, the model has no ability to assist you.
I’m sorry I need to go. I have an appointment coming up, and I need to get lunch before that appointment. So I’ve enjoyed the interaction. Maybe we can pick this up at another time.
Yes thank you. Should I call you Mr. Faulkner, or how do you like to be addressed?
Danny is fine, thank you.
