Jimmy McGill

Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« on: September 03, 2018, 05:40:25 AM »
I want to start off by thanking you guys and girls in the forums for helping me sort through some of these questions.

A working model on the shape of the planet and nature of our solar system should be able to explain all of the questions I have, yet I’ve not found suitable answers yet.

If you don’t have the answers to all of my questions that’s fine, I’m sure another will chime in and help me piece this puzzle together. Just help me understand what you can without dropping random YouTube videos. Your own words please.


- What is a satellite?
- If they aren’t real, then what are we seeing?
- If they’re balloons; How high are they? How do they attain such speed? Where are they launched and landed? How do they overcome wind currents? What propels them? Why can I see an obviously non-balloon shape in my telescope?

- Is the sun flat?
- How large and how far away is the sun?
- If the law of perspective pushed by flat earthers is true, and the earth is indeed flat,  why does the sun not grow from dawn to noon and shrink from noon to dusk? The moon also? They should appear to shrink and grow and shrink again as the day goes by, and significantly at that, depending on their sizes and their distance away from the earth!
- If “perspective” is true and the earth is flat, then why can’t we bring the sun or moon back into view with binoculars or a telescope?
- What are solar and lunar eclipses?


- What are the planets?
- Why do they move in relation to the stars?
- How does the FE Model explain the obviously spherical shape of these planets? (Rotation, rings, moons, solar eclipses from the moons, etc.)

- What do the governments of the world gain from covering up the flat earth?
- How do they keep it a secret?


- What is gravity?


Again I want to thank you all for your cooperation. After my friend brought them up to me in a good natured debate, these issues have been bugging me. They’ve really forced me to reconsider my views on the flat earth model.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2018, 07:32:18 AM »
Search the wiki and the forums, you'll find tons of stuff. To get you started:

- What is a satellite?
- If they aren’t real, then what are we seeing?
- If they’re balloons; How high are they? How do they attain such speed? Where are they launched and landed? How do they overcome wind currents? What propels them? Why can I see an obviously non-balloon shape in my telescope?

Anyway, here are a few threads I picked out from my search for "satellites". They don't directly address your question, but they do explain the FES's general views on satellites and their existence (n.b. I am not trying to make this an exhaustive list, just providing a starting point):

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1150.0
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2141.0
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3359.0
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2445.0

- Is the sun flat?
- How large and how far away is the sun?
- If the law of perspective pushed by flat earthers is true, and the earth is indeed flat,  why does the sun not grow from dawn to noon and shrink from noon to dusk? The moon also? They should appear to shrink and grow and shrink again as the day goes by, and significantly at that, depending on their sizes and their distance away from the earth!
- If “perspective” is true and the earth is flat, then why can’t we bring the sun or moon back into view with binoculars or a telescope?
- What are solar and lunar eclipses?

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun

- What are the planets?
- Why do they move in relation to the stars?
- How does the FE Model explain the obviously spherical shape of these planets? (Rotation, rings, moons, solar eclipses from the moons, etc.)

https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions

- What do the governments of the world gain from covering up the flat earth?
- How do they keep it a secret?

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

- What is gravity?

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration


Jimmy McGill

Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2018, 06:31:44 PM »
- Still nothing to address the shape of the sun (spherical, flat plane, etc)
- If the sun were spherical, 32 miles in diameter, and 3,000 miles above the earth, then at any point on the planet, at any given time, a person could see the sun.
- If it were a 32 mile flat circle, then at dawn and dusk it would appear elliptical, while at noon appearing as a circle. For those in the northern and Southern Hemispheres, not directly beneath it, it would always appear slightly elliptical.
- Does not address the fact that if the earth were flat, you should be able to bring the sun (or moon) back into view with a pair of binoculars or a telescope, regardless of its shape, just like how FE claims you can do with boats on the ocean (you can’t).
(Edit to add... Doesn’t address the fact that the sun would grow drastically larger until noon and shrink until dusk.) :)

- FE apparently accepts that the planets are spherical, but aren’t comparable objects to the earth, thus not proving RE.
- Doesn’t give a specified size/distance from the earth/sun. Needs to do this to account for visual observations of solar eclipses from the various moons of Jupiter and Saturn that any layman can witness with a 200$ telescope.

- There is no coverup. But NASA faked it all in the early stages of the program to advance the US’s military dominance. But NASA isn’t covering anything up.... they genuinely believe the earth is round. Right.

- Still nothing concrete on satellites. Just a few FE’rs arguing amongst themselves and RE’rs. Something claim about fluid-like “aether” rushing past earth, somehow pushed by UA faster than earth, creating a void above the earth in which satellites are possible. No evidence, can be disregarded.

- No evidence for UA, can be disregarded without evidence (even though evidence for gravity as we know it is abundant).


I was really hoping some of you would actually try to defend your positions but it looks like I’m going to be bored by the conversation.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2018, 07:41:49 PM by Jimmy McGill »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2018, 07:42:37 PM »
I was really hoping some of you would actually try to defend your positions but it looks like I’m going to be bored by the conversation.

My experience as to the way it works around here (and rightfully so) is that you need to express your concerns/desire for explanations for each issue individually. Case in point, Universal Acceleration. There are many threads with dozens of pages devoted to the exploration of such. Just search on ‘Universal Acceleration’, for example, and you’ll see what I mean. Same goes for the other topics. Or, start your own topic, but best to address a single issue at a time.

Jimmy McGill

Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« Reply #4 on: September 03, 2018, 08:07:40 PM »
I was really hoping some of you would actually try to defend your positions but it looks like I’m going to be bored by the conversation.

My experience as to the way it works around here (and rightfully so) is that you need to express your concerns/desire for explanations for each issue individually. Case in point, Universal Acceleration. There are many threads with dozens of pages devoted to the exploration of such. Just search on ‘Universal Acceleration’, for example, and you’ll see what I mean. Same goes for the other topics. Or, start your own topic, but best to address a single issue at a time.

It’s really not that complicated though. A person should be able to address multiple issues at once with a proper theory.
Besides, in my OP I made it clear that ny questions didn’t need to be addressed all at once.

I’ve read the threads about UA. There is not a shred of evidence in support of it. For gravity as all scientists understand it today, it’s obvious that objects with mass attract each other. This has been tested. Gravitational lensing bends space so much that we can even see the effects on light rays.
Maybe rename it the flat earth hypotheses?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2018, 09:22:21 PM »
I was really hoping some of you would actually try to defend your positions but it looks like I’m going to be bored by the conversation.

My experience as to the way it works around here (and rightfully so) is that you need to express your concerns/desire for explanations for each issue individually. Case in point, Universal Acceleration. There are many threads with dozens of pages devoted to the exploration of such. Just search on ‘Universal Acceleration’, for example, and you’ll see what I mean. Same goes for the other topics. Or, start your own topic, but best to address a single issue at a time.

It’s really not that complicated though. A person should be able to address multiple issues at once with a proper theory.
Besides, in my OP I made it clear that ny questions didn’t need to be addressed all at once.

I’ve read the threads about UA. There is not a shred of evidence in support of it. For gravity as all scientists understand it today, it’s obvious that objects with mass attract each other. This has been tested. Gravitational lensing bends space so much that we can even see the effects on light rays.
Maybe rename it the flat earth hypotheses?

There is a lot of information abotut GR and gravitational lensing in the books and materials I posted here.

In specific to the lensing of light around the sun, see Professor Poor's assessment in the following article: Is Einstein Wrong? The Errors of Einstein

Per the Cavendish Experiment, that experiment does not properly account for the electrostatic force, which is much stronger than the alleged force of "gravity". Read: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Globebusters also looked at the Cavendish Experiment in the video I posted in the recent UA thread on the investigations forum:

Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator

Scroll back a little on that video in the above thread and you will find them talking about the Cavendish Experiment.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2018, 10:08:44 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« Reply #6 on: September 04, 2018, 12:37:05 AM »
"There is a lot of information abotut GR and gravitational lensing in the books and materials I posted here."

Thanks Tom! The refutations of these sources would probably take months to document. I perused several links and immediately discovered multiple issues. For evidence, I provide one here, check out page 102 (chosen almost at random):

http://vixra.org/pdf/1201.0082v1.pdf

Any physics freshman would immediately identify that this expression cannot describe reality. Dimensional analysis is one of the first things we teach our students.

"In specific to the lensing of light around the sun, see Professor Poor's assessment in the following article: Is Einstein Wrong? The Errors of Einstein"

One example about this link is the lack of consistency with metric definitions. The author posits multiple amendments to relativistic kinematics, and many of them result in distances which have a negative or zero length! This is not even in the ballpark of science. It is hackwork that anyone who has taken even a semester or two of physics can identify. Moreover, there have been dozens of observations which support the bending of light. These all accord with Einstein's calculations. The entire field of modern astronomy relies upon it!

"Per the Cavendish Experiment, that experiment does not properly account for the electrostatic force, which is much stronger than the alleged force of "gravity". Read: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html"

Well sure it does! The objects are electrically neutral. Hence, the electrostatic force is MUCH smaller than the gravitational force....it is zero.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2018, 02:35:09 AM »
"There is a lot of information abotut GR and gravitational lensing in the books and materials I posted here."

Thanks Tom! The refutations of these sources would probably take months to document. I perused several links and immediately discovered multiple issues. For evidence, I provide one here, check out page 102 (chosen almost at random):

http://vixra.org/pdf/1201.0082v1.pdf

Any physics freshman would immediately identify that this expression cannot describe reality. Dimensional analysis is one of the first things we teach our students.

Page 102 is in the middle of the Mach's Principle section. Mach didn't use a traditional physics cosmology. It's not a specific theory of gravity or motion, at least not one like the Newtonian or Einsteinian one. You should look into Mach's work.

Quote
"In specific to the lensing of light around the sun, see Professor Poor's assessment in the following article: Is Einstein Wrong? The Errors of Einstein"

One example about this link is the lack of consistency with metric definitions. The author posits multiple amendments to relativistic kinematics, and many of them result in distances which have a negative or zero length! This is not even in the ballpark of science. It is hackwork that anyone who has taken even a semester or two of physics can identify.

Charles Lane Poor was a professor of Celestial Mechanics at Columbia University and held a PhD. What makes you think that he never took a semester of physics?

Quote
Moreover, there have been dozens of observations which support the bending of light. These all accord with Einstein's calculations. The entire field of modern astronomy relies upon it!

You were lied to. Einstein specifically lost the Nobel Prize for Relativity because his theories were NOT successful.

See these articles:

No doubt: Einstein’s General Theory Of Relativity Was Wrong

Astronomical Data of 1919 -1973 Eclipse Prove Einstein’s Prediction Doesn’t Work


Quote
"Per the Cavendish Experiment, that experiment does not properly account for the electrostatic force, which is much stronger than the alleged force of "gravity". Read: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html"

Well sure it does! The objects are electrically neutral. Hence, the electrostatic force is MUCH smaller than the gravitational force....it is zero.

That is false. Read the material that I linked.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2018, 04:20:41 AM »
"There is a lot of information abotut GR and gravitational lensing in the books and materials I posted here."

Thanks Tom! The refutations of these sources would probably take months to document. I perused several links and immediately discovered multiple issues. For evidence, I provide one here, check out page 102 (chosen almost at random):

http://vixra.org/pdf/1201.0082v1.pdf

Any physics freshman would immediately identify that this expression cannot describe reality. Dimensional analysis is one of the first things we teach our students.

Page 102 is in the middle of the Mach's Principle section. Mach didn't use a traditional physics cosmology. It's not a specific theory of gravity or motion, at least not one like the Newtonian or Einsteinian one. You should look into Mach's work.

Mach in fact uses the most conventional cosmology at the time: Minkowski geometry. It was not called that then, of course, but that is what he was using. Thomas, you see...I teach Mach's work at the college level. I am sure you don't believe that, but it is easy for me to prove: Mach's developments never divorce from dimensional analysis.

Dimensional analysis is not an issue of Newton or Einstein. It is an issue of units. One cannot add 5 seconds to 3 meters and get an answer that makes sense. This is just fundamentally wrong. Mach would never make such a mistake. What you are proposing is not only preposterous, but preposterous to a freshman physics student.

Quote
"In specific to the lensing of light around the sun, see Professor Poor's assessment in the following article: Is Einstein Wrong? The Errors of Einstein"

One example about this link is the lack of consistency with metric definitions. The author posits multiple amendments to relativistic kinematics, and many of them result in distances which have a negative or zero length! This is not even in the ballpark of science. It is hackwork that anyone who has taken even a semester or two of physics can identify.

Charles Lane Poor was a professor of Celestial Mechanics at Columbia University and held a PhD. What makes you think that he never took a semester of physics?

Quote
Moreover, there have been dozens of observations which support the bending of light. These all accord with Einstein's calculations. The entire field of modern astronomy relies upon it!

You were lied to. Einstein specifically lost the Nobel Prize for Relativity because his theories were NOT successful.

See these articles:

No doubt: Einstein’s General Theory Of Relativity Was Wrong

Astronomical Data of 1919 -1973 Eclipse Prove Einstein’s Prediction Doesn’t Work

Oh dear, you are quite mistaken. Einstein was never a contender for the Nobel Prize for relativity. This is a sophomoric belief. We correct this misunderstanding of history in freshman physics classes. Einstein won the Nobel Prize for his contributions to Quantum Mechanics, believe it or not.

Quote
"Per the Cavendish Experiment, that experiment does not properly account for the electrostatic force, which is much stronger than the alleged force of "gravity". Read: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html"

Well sure it does! The objects are electrically neutral. Hence, the electrostatic force is MUCH smaller than the gravitational force....it is zero.

That is false. Read the material that I linked.

Mach in fact uses the most conventional cosmology at the time: Minkowski geometry. It was not called that then, of course, but that is what he was using. Thomas, you see...I teach Mach's work at the college level. I am sure you don't believe that, but it is easy for me to prove: Mach's developments never divorce from dimensional analysis.

Dimensional analysis is not an issue of Newton or Einstein. It is an issue of units. One cannot add 5 seconds to 3 meters and get an answer that makes sense. This is just fundamentally wrong. Mach would never make such a mistake. What you are proposing is not only preposterous, but preposterous to a freshman physics student.

Oh dear, you are quite mistaken. Einstein was never a contender for the Nobel Prize for relativity. This is a sophomoric belief. We correct this misunderstanding of history in freshman physics classes. Einstein won the Nobel Prize for his contributions to Quantum Mechanics, believe it or not.

No, it is not false. The material you have linked does not demonstrate in any way, shape, or form that the Coulomb force is operative. Look, the Coulomb force is an easy sum. You just add the charges up. This link does nothing of the sort. Look at the actual equations in the link! Nothing shows that Coulomb is greater than gravity! No equation in this link even compares the two! You are being duped!

I cannot believe you do not see this!
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« Reply #9 on: September 04, 2018, 04:51:52 AM »
You were lied to. Einstein specifically lost the Nobel Prize for Relativity because his theories were NOT successful.

This statement is sort of bending the argument to your will. If anything, as the Nobel committee stated with their caveat to Einstein's Nobel award, "without taking into account the value that will be accorded your relativity and gravitation theories after these are confirmed in the future". In other words, the committee felt relativity was untested at the time. NOT that his theories were unsuccessful.

See these articles:

No doubt: Einstein’s General Theory Of Relativity Was Wrong

Astronomical Data of 1919 -1973 Eclipse Prove Einstein’s Prediction Doesn’t Work

As well, this author seems to be pretty liberal with the facts and is full of conjecture and is definitely not a physicist.

This regarding the 1919 Eclipse experiment as well as subsequent experiments further cementing Einstein was correct and actually, his theories quite successful - From the APS:

"Not everyone immediately accepted the results. Some astronomers accused Eddington of manipulating his data because he threw out values obtained from the Brazilian team’s warped telescopes, which gave results closer to the Newtonian value. Others questioned whether his images were of sufficient quality to make a definitive conclusion. Astronomers at Lick Observatory in California repeated the measurement during the 1922 eclipse, and got similar results, as did the teams who made measurements during the solar eclipses of 1953 and 1973. Each new result was better than the last. By the 1960s, most physicists accepted that Einstein’s prediction of how much light would be deflected was the correct one.”

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201605/physicshistory.cfm

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2018, 06:32:33 AM »
Quote
Mach in fact uses the most conventional cosmology at the time: Minkowski geometry. It was not called that then, of course, but that is what he was using. Thomas, you see...I teach Mach's work at the college level. I am sure you don't believe that, but it is easy for me to prove: Mach's developments never divorce from dimensional analysis.

Dimensional analysis is not an issue of Newton or Einstein. It is an issue of units. One cannot add 5 seconds to 3 meters and get an answer that makes sense. This is just fundamentally wrong. Mach would never make such a mistake. What you are proposing is not only preposterous, but preposterous to a freshman physics student.

Sergey N. Arteha is hardly a freshman physics student. Take a look at his biography.

Quote
Oh dear, you are quite mistaken. Einstein was never a contender for the Nobel Prize for relativity. This is a sophomoric belief. We correct this misunderstanding of history in freshman physics classes. Einstein won the Nobel Prize for his contributions to Quantum Mechanics, believe it or not.

Here is an article:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2012/oct/08/einstein-nobel-prize-relativity

Quote
Why Einstein never received a Nobel prize for relativity

Nobel prizes often attract controversy, but usually after they have been awarded. Albert Einstein's physics prize was the subject of argument for years before it was even a reality

...

By this time, Einstein had a decade's worth of Nobel nominations behind him. Yet each year, to mounting criticism, the committee decided against his work on the grounds that relativity was unproven. In 1919, that changed. Cambridge astrophysicist Arthur Eddington famously used a total eclipse to measure the deflection of stars' positions near the Sun. The size of the deflection was exactly as Einstein had predicted from relativity in 1915. The prize should have been his, but the committee snubbed him again.

Why? Because now dark forces were at work.

...

It has been argued that this work, which introduced the concept of photons, has had more impact than relativity. I'm not sure. With relativity, Einstein gave us a way to understand the Universe as a whole. It was a staggering leap forward in our intellectual capability.

The Nobel citation reads that Einstein is honoured for "services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". At first glance, the reference to theoretical physics could have been a back door through which the committee acknowledged relativity. However, there was a caveat stating that the award was presented "without taking into account the value that will be accorded your relativity and gravitation theories after these are confirmed in the future".

To many, and to Einstein himself, this felt like a slap in the face.

Einstein was set to receive a Nobel Prize for Relativity, but he didn't. They didn't give it to him. In fact, when they gave him any recognition, they specifically spelled out that they were not doing so for his work on relativity. Slap in the face, indeed.

This particular author thinks that Einstein deserved the prize because he was right and wah wah. In the last two articles on Medium we read that his bending starlight predictions were NOT correct. The Eddington result was pretty questionable and Einstein's theory was observed to be false on several other occasions.

From Medium:

Quote
In the month of May 1919 the weather in Principe was not favourable because it was cloudy, and so was the time before the eclipse. However, Eddington succeeded in taking the photo of the solar eclipse taking place for 6 minutes 30 seconds. And the calculation output on light deviation by Arthur Eddington was 1.62 seconds of an arc, close to the Einstein’s calculation output of 1.75 seconds of an arc.

It is really hard to understand that the proving method was conducted by a team led by Arthur Eddington. Therefore, output of the said proving performed by Arthur Eddington must be rejected.

Moreover later on it was found out that based on the data from RAS (Royal Astronomical Society) that in the year 1919 RAS had sent two teams of expedition, namely Arthur Eddington and Edwin Cottingham to Principe Island in West of Africa, Andrew Crommelin and Charles Davidson to Sobral in North East of Brazil.

Calculation output of Arthur Eddington’s team was 1.62 seconds of an arc, while the calculation output of Andrew Crommelin was 0.93 seconds of an arc. This very vivid difference was ignored as if the expedition team performing the measuring from Sobral never existed.

There is also mention in The Guardian article that Einstein did not receive the prize and that his work was being snubbed due to racism/anti-semitism... which is the official story...  Einstein was right but the scientists were jew haters!

Face the facts. If Einstein really had presented an elegant model of the world he would have been given a Nobel Prize for it.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2018, 01:18:16 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2018, 06:55:54 AM »
In the last two articles on Medium we read that his bending starlight predictions were NOT correct. The Eddington result was pretty questionable and Einstein's theory was observed to be false on several other occasions.

A) Medium is not known for being a scientific journal.
B) The author you reference is a former naval navigator, not a theoretical physicist and none of his 'works' have been peer reviewed.
C) And yes, Eddington's results were questioned by some.

However, unlike what the author makes up in his medium articles, the subsequent eclipse tests, in 1922, 1953 and 1973 each confirmed with greater accuracy Einstein's predictions.





*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« Reply #12 on: September 04, 2018, 07:23:39 AM »
The Eddington result was pretty questionable and Einstein's theory was observed to be false on several other occasions.

A) Medium is not known for being a scientific journal.
B) The author you reference is a former naval navigator, not a theoretical physicist and none of his 'works' have been peer reviewed.
C) And yes, Eddington's results were questioned by some.

However, unlike what the author makes up in his medium articles, the subsequent eclipse tests, in 1922, 1953 and 1973 each confirmed with greater accuracy Einstein's predictions.

Not only was it questionable, Eddington was also accused of throwing out data entirely.

That's right, the author is a naval professional. That makes him qualified to show how the eclipse data is fallacious. He speaks about deflection of light when measuring the sun in his article Astronomical Data of 1919 -1973 Eclipse Prove Einstein’s Prediction Doesn’t Work

Quote
Einstein calculated the degree of deflection that should be observed and predicted that for the stars closest to the Sun the deviation would be about 1.75 sec. arc. The important things to be noted, the amount of 1.75 sec.arc without mentioning the altitude of the Sun as the object of observation. This is a fatal mistake; or something like a joke; because the deviation of starlight will always vary depending on the altitude of the object of observation from the sea level.

Sounds like something a naval navigator experienced with measuring the sun and the stars would say. The author goes on to provide several sources for that assertion, with data showing where the sun was in the sky on that day and how much deflection should be seen.

One need only casually peak into the mess that is going on with "dark matter" and the "dark energy" which needs to hold most of the universe together to see that Einstein's theories don't really explain anything. We don't have an elegant model of the universe. Gravity, whether by Newton or Einstein, doesn't even work.

Look no further than the rotation of galaxies. Astronomers can't even use GR to explain very simple things like the spinning movement of galaxies. Galaxies are observed to spin as if they were solid disks, but according to theory, the center of the galaxy should be spinning much faster than the edges. In order to explain the rotation of galaxies they need the entire galaxy filled with some kind of substance which holds the stars strongly together.

See http://news.softpedia.com/news/Stars-escaping-out-of-the-Galaxy-17222.shtml

Quote
According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges. This is similar to how an ice-skater rotates: when she extends her arms she moves more slowly, when she either extends her arms above her head or keeps them close to the body she starts to rotate more rapidly. Taking into consideration how gravitation connects the stars in the galaxy the predicted result is that average orbital speed of a star at a specified distance away from the center would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line, A, in figure below). However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other (the solid line, B, in the figure below).

From https://www.quantamagazine.org/troubled-times-for-alternatives-to-einsteins-theory-of-gravity-20180430/ we read:

Quote
For decades, astronomers have noticed that the behavior of galaxies and galaxy clusters doesn’t seem to fit the predictions of general relativity. Dark matter is one way to explain that behavior. Likewise, the accelerating expansion of the universe can be thought of as being powered by a dark energy.

All attempts to directly detect dark matter and dark energy have failed, however. That fact “kind of leaves a bad taste in some people’s mouths, almost like the fictional planet Vulcan,” said Leo Stein, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology. “Maybe we’re going about it all wrong?”

For any alternative theory of gravity to work, it has to not only do away with dark matter and dark energy, but also reproduce the predictions of general relativity in all the standard contexts. “The business of alternative gravity theories is a messy one,” Archibald said. Some would-be replacements for general relativity, like string theory and loop quantum gravity, don’t offer testable predictions. Others “make predictions that are spectacularly wrong, so the theorists have to devise some kind of a screening mechanism to hide the wrong prediction on scales we can actually test,” she said.

Astronomers search for an alternative, because General Relativity can't explain basic movement and behavior of the universe. It is a failure.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2018, 09:12:14 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« Reply #13 on: September 04, 2018, 08:01:21 AM »
Tom. I seriously can’t believe you referenced this dude to refute the Cavendish Experiment

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

I see that that’s also where you got the pi = 4 nonsense from.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« Reply #14 on: September 04, 2018, 08:12:06 AM »
Tom. I seriously can’t believe you referenced this dude to refute the Cavendish Experiment

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

I see that that’s also where you got the pi = 4 nonsense from.

That's a humor website. What are the credentials of those people who call his work "comical attempts"?

Pi not equaling its traditional value is entirely valid. Pi is a concept that depends on the existence of perfect circles. If the circle is not perfect, and if space is "quantized" (divisible by discrete units) rather than continuous then the distance around all of the little pixelized elements is much longer. Who proved that mathematically perfect circles exist?

Are you going to prove the existence of perfect circles in this thread? I don't think that you will.

If you are not going to actually address arguments and instead resort to attempted attacks on character, then you should not bother to debate. Why should I address your arguments? What are your credentials to say that General Relativity and gravity as it exists in the mainstream is correct, in contradiction to the physicists and professors who say that it is not correct?
« Last Edit: September 04, 2018, 10:30:42 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« Reply #15 on: September 04, 2018, 08:22:52 AM »
Astronomers search for an alternative, because General Relativity can't explain basic movement and behavior of the universe. It is a failure.

Here's a recent non-failure:

Gravitational Starlight Deflection Measurements during the 21 August 2017 Total Solar Eclipse

Abstract:

The final result was a deflection coefficient L = 1.752 arcsec, compared to the theoretical value of L = 1.751 arcsec, with an uncertainty of only 3%."

"Corrections for atmospheric refraction were still needed, but those were easily calculated from local weather measurements. Hence, this particular trial had fewer obstacles to reach high accuracy.”


https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1802/1802.00343.pdf

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« Reply #16 on: September 04, 2018, 08:50:22 AM »
Astronomers search for an alternative, because General Relativity can't explain basic movement and behavior of the universe. It is a failure.

Here's a recent non-failure:

Gravitational Starlight Deflection Measurements during the 21 August 2017 Total Solar Eclipse

Abstract:

The final result was a deflection coefficient L = 1.752 arcsec, compared to the theoretical value of L = 1.751 arcsec, with an uncertainty of only 3%."

"Corrections for atmospheric refraction were still needed, but those were easily calculated from local weather measurements. Hence, this particular trial had fewer obstacles to reach high accuracy.”


https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1802/1802.00343.pdf

The author freely uses statistical terms such as "mean deflections," etc. It is very easy to lie with statistics. These guys don't get paid by saying that modern science is wrong. That causes you to not be funded. Professor Charles Lane Poor says that other phenomenon unrelated to space-time bending would create similar effects as the "bending" of light. You can see a list of his articles here: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/545/Charles%20Lane,%20Poor -- most of those are critiques of the supposed bending of light.

The bending of light was known before Einstein. It is not some new discovery. He made this specific theory and predicted that starlight would bend to a certain number (numbers that some suspect were likely already known). Unfortunately, not only do different people report different results to that experiment, with some telling us that the phenomenon has nothing to do with bending space-time at all, Einstein's theory is not even championed in popular myth to predict much else.

Just listen to the logic you are proposing. You are asserting that Einstein can predict the starlight deflection, but by focusing on that you also implicitly admit that he cannot predict anything else in the universe, the universe needing to be filled with dark matter and dark energy to fill in any and all gaps.

Wow, starlight "bending." Amazing! Einstein proofed victori!

What a weak argument. Throw it away and start over. The physics of the universe isn't about the deflection of starlight around the sun.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2018, 09:08:42 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« Reply #17 on: September 04, 2018, 09:07:32 AM »
The author freely uses statistical terms in his work. Terms such as "mean deflections," etc. It is very easy to lie with statistics. These guys don't get paid by saying that modern science is wrong. That causes you to not be funded.

Who are you to assume what the author's motivations are? And just about everything can be manipulated, doesn't mean that it is. What kind of an argument is that?

Just listen to the logic you are proposing. You are asserting that Einstein can predict the starlight deflection, but cannot literally predict anything else in the universe, the universe needing to be filled with dark matter and dark energy to fill in any and all gaps.

I never made that assertion. I'm asserting that Einstein made the starlight deflection prediction and 100 years later, it still holds, period. You brought up dark matter and such, I never mentioned that.

What a weak argument. Throw it away and start over. The physics of the universe isn't about the deflection of starlight around the sun.

Ummm, you brought up the whole "deflection of starlight" issue to begin with. And no one was talking about the entirety of the physical universe.

That's a humor website. What are the credentials of those people who call his work "comical attempts"?

Yeah, you cited this guy, definitely a gentleman and a scholar. Good job.

Just a smattering of his excellent investigative work (Check out the rest here: http://mileswmathis.com/bestfake.html):

NEW PAPER, added 8/20/16, The Lizzie Borden Axe Murders Never Happened. Another major hoax from Massachusetts.

NEW PAPER, added 7/19/16, The Society of Friends looks like another Jewish Front. We look at George Fox, founder of the Quakers.

NEW PAPER, added 5/5/16, The French Revolution. A backwards continuation of my Napoleon paper, with more appearances of the House of Vasa. Also some news about Louis XVI.

NEW PAPER, added 4/18/16, Was Napoleon Jewish? Plus many other things that will shock and confound you, including more on Laplace.

NEW PAPER, added 1/8/16, Steve Jobs: Bold, Brilliant, Brutal. . . Fake. We find that everyone involved in the Apple project is not who you were told.

NEW PAPER, added 11/19/17, Bill Gates: Jewish Aristocrat. Where we link Gates to everyone else you have ever heard of, and show Microsoft is one more front of the MATRIX.


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« Reply #18 on: September 04, 2018, 09:36:05 AM »
The author freely uses statistical terms in his work. Terms such as "mean deflections," etc. It is very easy to lie with statistics. These guys don't get paid by saying that modern science is wrong. That causes you to not be funded.

Who are you to assume what the author's motivations are? And just about everything can be manipulated, doesn't mean that it is. What kind of an argument is that?

Just listen to the logic you are proposing. You are asserting that Einstein can predict the starlight deflection, but cannot literally predict anything else in the universe, the universe needing to be filled with dark matter and dark energy to fill in any and all gaps.

I never made that assertion. I'm asserting that Einstein made the starlight deflection prediction and 100 years later, it still holds, period. You brought up dark matter and such, I never mentioned that.

What a weak argument. Throw it away and start over. The physics of the universe isn't about the deflection of starlight around the sun.

Ummm, you brought up the whole "deflection of starlight" issue to begin with. And no one was talking about the entirety of the physical universe.

People are tying to prove that "Einstein was right all along!!" because there is considerable doubt that he was right.

Einstein himself gave this bending light test as a test of his theory. The deflection of starlight was known before Einstein. He gave a number for what he thought it would be. Since this phenomenon was known before Einstein, what was stopping him from cheating by peaking at the answer when designing his theory?

It also seems that Einstein has been changing his answers:

From the book The Universe at Midnight: Observations Illuminating the Cosmos by Ken Crosswell we read:



Considering that this phenomenon has been known in the past, before Einstein was even born, and Einstein went around changing his predictions, how can we trust this at all?

Ken Crosswell has a PhD in Astronomy from Harvard University. Wikipedia page for the author.

So yes, we should expect more than this. Einstein's theory should explain the universe if we are to accept it as the model for the universe.

Quote
Yeah, you cited this guy, definitely a gentleman and a scholar. Good job.

Just a smattering of his excellent investigative work (Check out the rest here: http://mileswmathis.com/bestfake.html):

NEW PAPER, added 8/20/16, The Lizzie Borden Axe Murders Never Happened. Another major hoax from Massachusetts.

NEW PAPER, added 7/19/16, The Society of Friends looks like another Jewish Front. We look at George Fox, founder of the Quakers.

NEW PAPER, added 5/5/16, The French Revolution. A backwards continuation of my Napoleon paper, with more appearances of the House of Vasa. Also some news about Louis XVI.

NEW PAPER, added 4/18/16, Was Napoleon Jewish? Plus many other things that will shock and confound you, including more on Laplace.

NEW PAPER, added 1/8/16, Steve Jobs: Bold, Brilliant, Brutal. . . Fake. We find that everyone involved in the Apple project is not who you were told.

NEW PAPER, added 11/19/17, Bill Gates: Jewish Aristocrat. Where we link Gates to everyone else you have ever heard of, and show Microsoft is one more front of the MATRIX.

It's not false that a lot of people in power were historically Jewish. What this implies is up to interpretation. And an axe murder that happened in the 1800's being false? There have been a lot of falsities about axe murderers going around in popular myth. Have you even looked at his claims to make a valid critique?

All of that is off topic, and fallacious reasoning without proper vetting of the work.

We were looking at one of his Sandy Hook School Shooting Hoax articles on this forum, and the only thing he was really asserting is that the media was preparing the parents with statements because they wanted a certain media narrative rather than those parents giving their honest opinions. The article wasn't actually that radical, or even unreasonable. This is why you need to actually address and assess the subject matter before making rash decisions.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2018, 10:41:31 AM by Tom Bishop »

Why Not

Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« Reply #19 on: September 04, 2018, 11:14:22 AM »

One need only casually peak into the mess that is going on with "dark matter" and the "dark energy" which needs to hold most of the universe together to see that Einstein's theories don't really explain anything. We don't have an elegant model of the universe. Gravity, whether by Newton or Einstein, doesn't even work.

Look no further than the rotation of galaxies. Astronomers can't even use GR to explain very simple things like the spinning movement of galaxies. Galaxies are observed to spin as if they were solid disks, but according to theory, the center of the galaxy should be spinning much faster than the edges. In order to explain the rotation of galaxies they need the entire galaxy filled with some kind of substance which holds the stars strongly together.



We (RE) don't have an elegant model of the universe. You (FE) don't have a model of the universe at all.
You talk about galaxies as if they are simple? Think of the shear enormity of the issue, we don't fully understand something at that scale. Can the flat earth give even a single mathematical prediction for any observation?
Tom, I think you should leave discussions about astrophysics to the adults. The galaxies we don't understand are just 'lights in the sky' to you. Can you explain or predict anything about them with your flat earth nonsense?
« Last Edit: September 04, 2018, 11:16:35 AM by Why Not »