The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: TheHyperionite on July 23, 2019, 02:19:46 PM
-
If the earth is constantly moving upwards, constantly changing its positions, why do the constellations we're used to see barely change?
If you're thinking about saying that it's because these constellations are pretty far away and our perspective would barely change, sorry to disappoint you, but...
Why are there constellations that can only be seen on one half of the earth, commonly known as hemisphere, and can't be seen on the other?
-
Universal Acceleration is (mostly) universal. The Earth is not moving towards the stars, thus your core assumption is a simple mistake.
-
Ok, what about the fact that we can't see some constellations on different parts of the earth?
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration
-
Taking the first line from your link Pete, it states that..
The theory of the Electromagnetic Accelerator (EA) states that there is a mechanism to the universe that pulls, pushes, or deflects light upwards
I have italicalised the word mechanism in that sentence. Care to elaborate on what that mechanism might be? It is easy to say a 'mechanism' as a way of describing something in a very non-specific way. You have provided one link to FE Wiki to provide evidence for the existence of EA. Is there any other independence evidence for it?
How does FE theory account for the proper motion of the stars which a motion in perpendicular to the line of sight. The strongest example is Barnards Star.
-
I have italicalised the word mechanism in that sentence. Care to elaborate on what that mechanism might be? It is easy to say a 'mechanism' as a way of describing something in a very non-specific way.
If you prefer the word phenomenon or observation, suit yourself.
Is there any other independence evidence for it?
Probably not, much like there is no "independent evidence" for any other breakthrough. It has to start with someone.
How does FE theory account for the proper motion of the stars which a motion in perpendicular to the line of sight. The strongest example is Barnards Star.
You already answered your question: motion.
Please read up on the basics before asking further questions.
-
Pete, are you an advocate of Zeteticism?
From the wiki:
“Zeteticism differs from the usual scientific method in that using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A zetetic forms the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be then testing that out.”
-
My understanding of zeteticism is that one bases ones beliefs on direct observation. In other words if they cannot see it with their own eyes then they don't accept it as genuine and true evidence to support their belief. That is why images or video taken from space that show the curved surface of the Earth are discounted because they are not seeing it directly
Pete has commented that he knows of no mention or evidence about the existence of EA outside of the FE Wiki. That provides a somewhat biased I would suggest view on it. In this age of the worldwide (I hesitate to use the word global for obvious reasons) Internet you would think that if it were a viable theory then there would be other, independent mentions of it wouldn't you? FE Wiki is largely a collection of ideas, speculations, call them what you like that have been put together to make different aspects of natural phenomenon or observations 'work' in a FE model. Nothing more. That doesn't make it real or true.
Following on from another comment from Pete, Ok lets use the world phenomenon, observation, mechanism or whatever synonyms you wish. It still doesn't give us any information other than a speculative opinion about something.
Anyway going back to the subject at hand, I have yet to see FE theory clearly and completely account for the variation in the visibility of the constellations generally.
-
EA is an interesting theory. It seems that it would be consistent with the movements of the sun we observe every day. However, I have a few thoughts/queries about it.
1) As mentioned in the wiki once the sun has 'set' due to EA, the sun would not be visible due to all of the light from the sun curving upwards before it reaches the earth. In this case it should be possible, after the sun has set, to travel up in some sort of aircraft and see the sun BELOW the horizon. i.e. appear to be between the observer and the earth
Has there been any observation of this?
2) My understanding is that usually when light bends it is due to it moving and experiencing a change in density. When light moves into a medium that is more dense, it curves towards the normal, where the normal is the line perpendicular to the boundary of the two mediums. This is easily observable and verifiable with a concave and convex lense. The lense is more dense than air and the light curves towards the normal in both cases. The path of light in the EA model as it travels from the sun bends away from the normal.
This could be caused by either the space between the sun and earth becoming LESS dense as light travels towards the earth (seems to be against observation of air being thinner at altitude) or the cause of the bending of light being something other than density.
With this taken into account I would suggest globe earth theory a more likely explanation of the rising and setting of the sun than EA theory, until more observations/experiments can be made that are consistent with EA theory.