Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
How does FET explain these very simple errors
« on: August 16, 2017, 07:23:32 PM »
First, let me say this site is fantastic. Who doesn't like a little nutty conspiracy theory once in awhile. I have a feeling that 90% of the supposed FE supporters are actually just faking it for fun or to encourage critical thinking. I do worry about the other 10% who are suffering from delusional paranoia.

I read the Wiki and there are some very glaring facts that blow this "theory" out of the water.

The sun and planets. So FET says the Sun is roughly 3000 miles away and is only 32 miles across. A few things. 32 miles is not large enough to create enough gravitational pressure to initiate fusion in hydrogen gas. (and we do know what the sun is burning because of its spectral lines) You lack the mass.

The planets are small and orbit the sun a couple thousand miles away. If this is true, why has no group of intrepid FETers launched a mission to these tiny planets to prove to the world that the Earth is flat? I think we all know that answer to that one.

Your model of sunlight is verifiable incorrect. If the Earth is laid out as proposed, some locations in the east would still be in daylight, while areas southwest would be in the dark. A simple phone call between two people, one positioned southwest of another could prove that the Earth is illuminated by this "flashlight" sun. Why hasn't this very easy, inexpensive test been done??? Again, we know the answer.

Edge continent that keeps the air in. LOL, hard not to laugh when typing that. Where is this 50K foot tall wall of rock or ice surrounding this flat expanse of land?? Surely it could be mapped by a simple mission. Again, the answer to why no one has done this is very clear. Also, the theory about dark energy holding in the air is completely false. Dark energy and matter are named that because they DON'T INTERACT with normal matter. It wouldn't be dark energy if it was holding all the air in. lol

There are many other obvious problems with FET - what causes this acceleration that gives the illusion of gravity, why don't the sun, moon, and planets simply crash into the Earth? I could go on - magnetism without a metallic core, the seaborne radar problem, the fake vanishing point argument. Good fun, but the believers in this stuff are...well, I'll be nice and say nothing.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Re: How does FET explain these very simple errors
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2017, 07:53:20 PM »
First, let me say this site is fantastic. Who doesn't like a little nutty conspiracy theory once in awhile. I have a feeling that 90% of the supposed FE supporters are actually just faking it for fun or to encourage critical thinking. I do worry about the other 10% who are suffering from delusional paranoia.

I read the Wiki and there are some very glaring facts that blow this "theory" out of the water.

1. The sun and planets. So FET says the Sun is roughly 3000 miles away and is only 32 miles across. A few things. 32 miles is not large enough to create enough gravitational pressure to initiate fusion in hydrogen gas. (and we do know what the sun is burning because of its spectral lines) You lack the mass.

2. The planets are small and orbit the sun a couple thousand miles away. If this is true, why has no group of intrepid FETers launched a mission to these tiny planets to prove to the world that the Earth is flat? I think we all know that answer to that one.

3. Your model of sunlight is verifiable incorrect. If the Earth is laid out as proposed, some locations in the east would still be in daylight, while areas southwest would be in the dark. A simple phone call between two people, one positioned southwest of another could prove that the Earth is illuminated by this "flashlight" sun. Why hasn't this very easy, inexpensive test been done??? Again, we know the answer.

4. Edge continent that keeps the air in. LOL, hard not to laugh when typing that. Where is this 50K foot tall wall of rock or ice surrounding this flat expanse of land?? Surely it could be mapped by a simple mission. Again, the answer to why no one has done this is very clear. Also, the theory about dark energy holding in the air is completely false. Dark energy and matter are named that because they DON'T INTERACT with normal matter. It wouldn't be dark energy if it was holding all the air in. lol

5. There are many other obvious problems with FET - what causes this acceleration that gives the illusion of gravity, 6. why don't the sun, moon, and planets simply crash into the Earth? I could go on - magnetism without a metallic core, the seaborne radar problem, the fake vanishing point argument. Good fun, but the believers in this stuff are...well, I'll be nice and say nothing.
If it were easy this site wouldn't exist anymore. Lemme run down the 'common/normal' answers to all of these for you.

1. The sun doesn't exert gravitational pressure on the Earth, and it isn't fueled by fusion. Fusion is only theoretical and therefore not an option for what's happening in the sun.

2. Because it's not possible to get that high. Remember, space travel is an impossibility.

3. There is no map of the flat earth, so anything you have to say about the map/layout will simply be dismissed with this statement.

4. There doesn't need to be anything to keep the air in because we are on an endless plane. Thus no edge.

5. Dark Energy (or similar) pushing up on the bottom of the plane the Earth is upon, creating a constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s

6. Haven't heard this one before, but spitballing is because they're all affected by Universal Acceleration. That's why it's called 'Universal' after all.

The rest I don't know enough about the issue being raised, or haven't heard of them to give a real good answer.

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: How does FET explain these very simple errors
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2017, 12:01:16 AM »
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
1. Is there no gravity? How do objects orbit the sun if that is the case? Fusion is absolutely real. That is beyond doubt. (actually, the Earth being round is beyond doubt as well, so I guess anything goes)
2. Why is space travel impossible??? Why have no FETers at least tried??? Seems they take a lot on faith.
3. Why no map? Are they too lazy to map the plane they live on?

I've seen a lot of comments about only trusting what your senses tell you. So I guess bacteria and viruses are big hoaxes, too? Electro-magnetic spectrum?? Can only see a small portion of that. I can't see microwaves, but they sure warm my food up.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

geckothegeek

Re: How does FET explain these very simple errors
« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2017, 12:22:04 AM »
There are a lot other FE items.
Take too much time to list all of them.
 
(2) Space travel is impossible because the earth is covered by a dome and anything that tried to go higher would collide with the dome. What the dome is made of is another question ?. Some say water, some say ice, and some say it is some kind of metal like brass. Lights in the sky are just reflections of lights on the earth.
(3) Work has been reported on maps by several FE's. They just have to work out a few(?) problems.

But a few.:
All scientists are evil.
So is any branch of science.
NASA seems to be the FE's arch-enemy.
NASA is an anagram for SATAN.
I'm not sure if and where the horizon would be on the flat earth, but, one is that you would not see a horizon, but just "An indistinct blur that fades away at an indefinite distance."

The earth is flat because the Bible says so. The word  "circle" means "a flat circle" and not "a round sphere."

Etc.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2017, 12:50:12 AM by geckothegeek »

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: How does FET explain these very simple errors
« Reply #4 on: August 17, 2017, 12:40:28 AM »
There are a lot other FE items.
Take too much time to list all of them.
 
(2) Space travel is impossible because the earth is covered by a dome and anything that tried to go higher would collide with the dome. What the dome is made of is another question ?. Some say water, some say ice, and some say it is some kind of metal like brass. Lights in the sky are just reflections of lights on the earth.

But a few.:
All scientists are evil.
So is any branch of science.
NASA seems to be the FE's arch-enemy.
NASA is an anagram for SATAN.
I'm not sure if and where the horizon would be on the flat earth, but, one is that you would not see a horizon, but just "An indistinct blur that fades away at an indefinite distance."
Et cetera, et cetera and so forth !
A dome that prevents space travel. Well surely we can see this dome or launch a rocket into it. There is no dome. You know it, I know it. If it was there, we could easily prove that.
Scientists are people, some good, some bad. Bet you don't hate them when you need medical care. I would love to know what makes science EVIL. (muhahahahaha - that's how they laugh, right?)
NASA is not an anagram for Satan. You're missing a letter. I'll bet you're fun around Christmas - SANTA!!!!!
I live on the shores of a very large body of water and can clearly see the horizon. It doesn't blur to nothing. It is a clear distinct line.
Please get help.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Re: How does FET explain these very simple errors
« Reply #5 on: August 17, 2017, 12:54:51 AM »
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
1. Is there no gravity? How do objects orbit the sun if that is the case? Fusion is absolutely real. That is beyond doubt. (actually, the Earth being round is beyond doubt as well, so I guess anything goes)
2. Why is space travel impossible??? Why have no FETers at least tried??? Seems they take a lot on faith.
3. Why no map? Are they too lazy to map the plane they live on?

I've seen a lot of comments about only trusting what your senses tell you. So I guess bacteria and viruses are big hoaxes, too? Electro-magnetic spectrum?? Can only see a small portion of that. I can't see microwaves, but they sure warm my food up.
1. The rest of the objects have gravity. It works to varying degrees based on who you ask. Fusion has not been experimentally observed, and is therefore not real (this is what I heard last time the issue came up).
2. Because it was 100 years ago, and something impossible doesn't just become possible. You can't prove it's possible because NASA hides all the schematics to make your own space craft. (Again, answer I got last time it came up.)
3. They don't have the resources to spend attempting to make a map of the world, because they would have to start from scratch because they don't know any distances. (Tom has famously said we don't know the actual distance between NY and Paris in the thread about airline flight times.)

I don't know about the rest of those honestly. One of the biggest issues with debating the topic is damn near every FE hypothesis believer has a different idea for how at least one thing works. Usually dozens, and a lot of them simply fall back on religion, or (as Tom does) prove them wrong. Tom in particular seems to assume his position is the default, and requires mountains of evidence for any claim about the Earth being round, far more so than he has ever presented for the Earth being flat.

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: How does FET explain these very simple errors
« Reply #6 on: August 17, 2017, 01:03:27 AM »
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
1. Is there no gravity? How do objects orbit the sun if that is the case? Fusion is absolutely real. That is beyond doubt. (actually, the Earth being round is beyond doubt as well, so I guess anything goes)
2. Why is space travel impossible??? Why have no FETers at least tried??? Seems they take a lot on faith.
3. Why no map? Are they too lazy to map the plane they live on?

I've seen a lot of comments about only trusting what your senses tell you. So I guess bacteria and viruses are big hoaxes, too? Electro-magnetic spectrum?? Can only see a small portion of that. I can't see microwaves, but they sure warm my food up.
1. The rest of the objects have gravity. It works to varying degrees based on who you ask. Fusion has not been experimentally observed, and is therefore not real (this is what I heard last time the issue came up).
2. Because it was 100 years ago, and something impossible doesn't just become possible. You can't prove it's possible because NASA hides all the schematics to make your own space craft. (Again, answer I got last time it came up.)
3. They don't have the resources to spend attempting to make a map of the world, because they would have to start from scratch because they don't know any distances. (Tom has famously said we don't know the actual distance between NY and Paris in the thread about airline flight times.)

I don't know about the rest of those honestly. One of the biggest issues with debating the topic is damn near every FE hypothesis believer has a different idea for how at least one thing works. Usually dozens, and a lot of them simply fall back on religion, or (as Tom does) prove them wrong. Tom in particular seems to assume his position is the default, and requires mountains of evidence for any claim about the Earth being round, far more so than he has ever presented for the Earth being flat.

LOL - fusion has never been experimentally observed?? I guess those islands in the south pacific just blew up on their own. lol, I know CGI. Totally had that back in the 50's.  This site is hilarious/maddening.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Re: How does FET explain these very simple errors
« Reply #7 on: August 17, 2017, 02:02:50 AM »
If I recall (been a few years) weren't the bombs fission bombs not fusion bombs? At least the A-Bombs. H we have much less experimental evidence for, and I don't remember at all fusion or fission on that one.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: How does FET explain these very simple errors
« Reply #8 on: August 17, 2017, 05:04:52 AM »
If I recall (been a few years) weren't the bombs fission bombs not fusion bombs? At least the A-Bombs. H we have much less experimental evidence for, and I don't remember at all fusion or fission on that one.

Yes, the first generation "A" bombs were fission weapons.  The second generation "H" bombs are a fusion weapon with a fission initiating stage.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: How does FET explain these very simple errors
« Reply #9 on: August 17, 2017, 08:44:14 AM »
The theory of Stellar Fusion uses a different mechanism/reaction sequence, and has never been demonstrated in a lab or a bomb.

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: How does FET explain these very simple errors
« Reply #10 on: August 17, 2017, 12:06:16 PM »
If I recall (been a few years) weren't the bombs fission bombs not fusion bombs? At least the A-Bombs. H we have much less experimental evidence for, and I don't remember at all fusion or fission on that one.

Fission bombs are much smaller. Large, megaton-class bombs are fusion bombs. Scientists are able to create fusion in lab conditions.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: How does FET explain these very simple errors
« Reply #11 on: August 17, 2017, 12:14:15 PM »
The theory of Stellar Fusion uses a different mechanism/reaction sequence, and has never been demonstrated in a lab or a bomb.

Tom, you are 100% incorrect. Stellar fusion and weapon fusion are the exact same process. Hydrogen atoms are compressed together, the fuse into helium atom, the resultant atom weighs less than 2 two hydrogen atoms. The lost mass is converted to energy. (E=MC^2) In the Sun, the compressive force is gravity. In a fusion bomb, the compressive force is provided by a fission bomb that sets off the fusion reaction.

Waiting for the deuterium complaint....
« Last Edit: August 18, 2017, 12:46:58 AM by StinkyOne »
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: How does FET explain these very simple errors
« Reply #12 on: August 18, 2017, 03:14:32 AM »
The theory of Stellar Fusion uses a different mechanism/reaction sequence, and has never been demonstrated in a lab or a bomb.

Tom, you are 100% incorrect. Stellar fusion and weapon fusion are the exact same process. Hydrogen atoms are compressed together, the fuse into helium atom, the resultant atom weighs less than 2 two hydrogen atoms. The lost mass is converted to energy. (E=MC^2) In the Sun, the compressive force is gravity. In a fusion bomb, the compressive force is provided by a fission bomb that sets off the fusion reaction.

Waiting for the deuterium complaint....


The proton-proton chain reaction is only theorized to occur in stars. There is nothing about it being used in weapons, according to its Wiki article.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: How does FET explain these very simple errors
« Reply #13 on: August 24, 2017, 07:14:56 AM »
The theory of Stellar Fusion uses a different mechanism/reaction sequence, and has never been demonstrated in a lab or a bomb.

Tom, you are 100% incorrect. Stellar fusion and weapon fusion are the exact same process. Hydrogen atoms are compressed together, the fuse into helium atom, the resultant atom weighs less than 2 two hydrogen atoms. The lost mass is converted to energy. (E=MC^2) In the Sun, the compressive force is gravity. In a fusion bomb, the compressive force is provided by a fission bomb that sets off the fusion reaction.

Waiting for the deuterium complaint....


The proton-proton chain reaction is only theorized to occur in stars. There is nothing about it being used in weapons, according to its Wiki article.

Tom: You should read the "History" section of this article.  It explains (with references and many useful links) how we know how the hydrogen fusion mechanism (the "proton-proton chain") operates in the Sun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

Do you really suppose that all of those very smart people are just guessing?   That is an exceedingly naive perspective.

If you have detailed questions about this, I'd be VERY happy to explain them to you.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: How does FET explain these very simple errors
« Reply #14 on: August 24, 2017, 12:33:55 PM »
Tom: You should read the "History" section of this article.  It explains (with references and many useful links) how we know how the hydrogen fusion mechanism (the "proton-proton chain") operates in the Sun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

Do you really suppose that all of those very smart people are just guessing?   That is an exceedingly naive perspective.

If you have detailed questions about this, I'd be VERY happy to explain them to you.

It directly says in the article that the theory was created based on "analyzing possibilities". I was unable to find the part in the article where Stellar Nucleosynthesis was confirmed in a lab. Perhaps you can point it out for me.

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: How does FET explain these very simple errors
« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2017, 03:07:39 PM »
Tom: You should read the "History" section of this article.  It explains (with references and many useful links) how we know how the hydrogen fusion mechanism (the "proton-proton chain") operates in the Sun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

Do you really suppose that all of those very smart people are just guessing?   That is an exceedingly naive perspective.

If you have detailed questions about this, I'd be VERY happy to explain them to you.

It directly says in the article that the theory was created based on "analyzing possibilities". I was unable to find the part in the article where Stellar Nucleosynthesis was confirmed in a lab. Perhaps you can point it out for me.
Don't need a lab, it has been confirmed via the Sun. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/underground-experiment-confirms-what-powers-sun
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: How does FET explain these very simple errors
« Reply #16 on: August 24, 2017, 03:11:49 PM »
Tom: You should read the "History" section of this article.  It explains (with references and many useful links) how we know how the hydrogen fusion mechanism (the "proton-proton chain") operates in the Sun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

Do you really suppose that all of those very smart people are just guessing?   That is an exceedingly naive perspective.

If you have detailed questions about this, I'd be VERY happy to explain them to you.

It directly says in the article that the theory was created based on "analyzing possibilities". I was unable to find the part in the article where Stellar Nucleosynthesis was confirmed in a lab. Perhaps you can point it out for me.
Don't need a lab, it has been confirmed via the Sun. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/underground-experiment-confirms-what-powers-sun

That is like saying that you have proof that a beautiful woman is in a darkened room because someone inside that room threw woman's underwear at you. That is not direct evidence that it was a woman, or that she is beautiful.

Re: How does FET explain these very simple errors
« Reply #17 on: August 24, 2017, 03:51:47 PM »
Tom: You should read the "History" section of this article.  It explains (with references and many useful links) how we know how the hydrogen fusion mechanism (the "proton-proton chain") operates in the Sun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

Do you really suppose that all of those very smart people are just guessing?   That is an exceedingly naive perspective.

If you have detailed questions about this, I'd be VERY happy to explain them to you.

It directly says in the article that the theory was created based on "analyzing possibilities". I was unable to find the part in the article where Stellar Nucleosynthesis was confirmed in a lab. Perhaps you can point it out for me.
Don't need a lab, it has been confirmed via the Sun. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/underground-experiment-confirms-what-powers-sun

That is like saying that you have proof that a beautiful woman is in a darkened room because someone inside that room threw woman's underwear at you. That is not direct evidence that it was a woman, or that she is beautiful.

More like: We have theories that suggest there should be a beautiful woman in the next room, and now we've found people coming out of there that also say there is a beautiful woman in the next room. We haven't directly observed the beautiful woman, but all signs point to her existence in the next room.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: How does FET explain these very simple errors
« Reply #18 on: August 24, 2017, 04:43:48 PM »
Tom: You should read the "History" section of this article.  It explains (with references and many useful links) how we know how the hydrogen fusion mechanism (the "proton-proton chain") operates in the Sun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

Do you really suppose that all of those very smart people are just guessing?   That is an exceedingly naive perspective.

If you have detailed questions about this, I'd be VERY happy to explain them to you.

It directly says in the article that the theory was created based on "analyzing possibilities". I was unable to find the part in the article where Stellar Nucleosynthesis was confirmed in a lab. Perhaps you can point it out for me.
Don't need a lab, it has been confirmed via the Sun. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/underground-experiment-confirms-what-powers-sun

That is like saying that you have proof that a beautiful woman is in a darkened room because someone inside that room threw woman's underwear at you. That is not direct evidence that it was a woman, or that she is beautiful.

More like: We have theories that suggest there should be a beautiful woman in the next room, and now we've found people coming out of there that also say there is a beautiful woman in the next room. We haven't directly observed the beautiful woman, but all signs point to her existence in the next room.

My analogy is more accurate. Neutrinos don't talk or have opinions or knowledge. It's just a neutrino. It can come from a stellar fusion process, but not necessarily the one described, or perhaps not even fusion at all.

The amount of neutrinos expected according to Stellar Fusion theory did not match what was observed. A quote from the article:

Quote
Initially, a two-thirds deficit in the detection rate confused the results.

Re: How does FET explain these very simple errors
« Reply #19 on: August 24, 2017, 05:08:27 PM »
Tom: You should read the "History" section of this article.  It explains (with references and many useful links) how we know how the hydrogen fusion mechanism (the "proton-proton chain") operates in the Sun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

Do you really suppose that all of those very smart people are just guessing?   That is an exceedingly naive perspective.

If you have detailed questions about this, I'd be VERY happy to explain them to you.

It directly says in the article that the theory was created based on "analyzing possibilities". I was unable to find the part in the article where Stellar Nucleosynthesis was confirmed in a lab. Perhaps you can point it out for me.
Don't need a lab, it has been confirmed via the Sun. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/underground-experiment-confirms-what-powers-sun

That is like saying that you have proof that a beautiful woman is in a darkened room because someone inside that room threw woman's underwear at you. That is not direct evidence that it was a woman, or that she is beautiful.

More like: We have theories that suggest there should be a beautiful woman in the next room, and now we've found people coming out of there that also say there is a beautiful woman in the next room. We haven't directly observed the beautiful woman, but all signs point to her existence in the next room.

My analogy is more accurate. Neutrinos don't talk or have opinions or knowledge. It's just a neutrino. It can come from a stellar fusion process, but not necessarily the one described, or perhaps not even fusion at all.

The amount of neutrinos expected according to Stellar Fusion theory did not match what was observed. A quote from the article:

Quote
Initially, a two-thirds deficit in the detection rate confused the results.
Did you bother to keep reading after that, or simply latch onto it and assume it proved your point? They clearly lay out why these come from the sun, that they match the amount predicted, and how they know after that point. The neutrino doesn't have to talk, the existence of the ones detected (which match the energy/type predicted to be produced by the reaction) is the 'speaking' referred to in the analogy. Or is that concept too difficult to grasp? I can never tell. The talking is an analogy for the neutrino matching the prediction of what it should look like according to the theory.