The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: herewegoround on April 03, 2015, 11:34:23 PM
-
1. The angular or apparent size of the sun in the sky does not change significantly. It changes slightly over the course of a year but not by any measurable amount over the course of a day. The only explanation for this is that the diameter of the Earth is negligible compared to the distance to the sun. If the sun is a distant object then all the light from it must be parallel. However, the angle of incoming sunlight is known to change gradually over the surface of the Earth: there are time zones. The only explanation for this is that the Earth is round.
2. There are circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Their centres of rotation are always either due North or due South respectively. The stars in between rise and set on the horizon much like the sun does. There is no flat Earth model which can account for this.
3. In the summer in Antarctica the sun is visible 24 hours a day. At the same time it is dark 24 hours a day in the Arctic. If the sun is following a giant circle above a flat disc it couldn't possibly be visible at all points around the edge of the disc while not being visible at the centre of the disc.
4. The sun sets. If the sun is following a giant circle above a flat disc it could never be seen to drop to an angle of elevation of less than 0 degrees. Also, its apparent size would change significantly over the course of a day and it would be seen to follow a radically different path in the sky.
5. Ships disappear over the horizon at the exact distance from shore as you would predict them to do if you were standing on a sphere with a radius of 4000 miles. Once they disappear the strongest telescope in the world won't bring them back into view. However, if you climb to higher ground the horizon line moves further away and you can see the ship again. The only explanation for these facts is that the world is round.
6. The curvature of the Earth had to be taken into account when building The Verrazano–Narrows Bridge.
7. The distance from the North Pole to the equator is about 6 200 miles. If the Earth is flat that would mean the equator is a circle with a circumference of 39 000 miles. The equator has a circumference of 25 000 miles.
8. According to the flat Earth model with The North Pole at the centre; the Tropic of Cancer should have a circumference of about 29 000 miles and the Tropic of Capricorn should have a circumference of about 49 000 miles. They both have a circumference of about 23 000 miles. Coupled with the fact that the equator has a circumference of 25 000 miles, this overwhelmingly suggests that the Earth is a spheroid.
-
Did you want us to debate these points or are you simply listing things for the sake of posterity?
-
Did you want us to debate these points or are you simply listing things for the sake of posterity?
Feel free to debate them.
-
Did you want us to debate these points or are you simply listing things for the sake of posterity?
Feel free to debate them.
Which one? It is kind of hard to debate a list of invalid and erroneous points all at once.
-
Did you want us to debate these points or are you simply listing things for the sake of posterity?
Feel free to debate them.
Which one? It is kind of hard to debate a list of invalid and erroneous points all at once.
I've seen you use this tactic so many times before.
Lets start with number 1.
1. The angular or apparent size of the sun in the sky does not change significantly. It changes slightly over the course of a year but not by any measurable amount over the course of a day. The only explanation for this is that the diameter of the Earth is negligible compared to the distance to the sun. If the sun is a distant object then all the light from it must be parallel. However, the angle of incoming sunlight is known to change gradually over the surface of the Earth: there are time zones. The only explanation for this is that the Earth is round.
-
But, the size of the sun does change over the day. I am confused as to whether you actually researched this or you are just repeating something that you may have heard in grade school or you are just making things up and trying to pass it off as a truth. Could you please enlighten us?
-
But, the size of the sun does change over the day. I am confused as to whether you actually researched this or you are just repeating something that you may have heard in grade school or you are just making things up and trying to pass it off as a truth. Could you please enlighten us?
This is the total epitome of flat Earth dishonesty. There are three main tactics as far as I can tell: invent un-specifiable processes that make the world seem like it's round, make meaningless comments, deny simple and well established facts about the world.
It is an uncontroversial and uncontentious fact that the angular size of the sun does not change significantly over the course of the day. If you happened to be at a place on the Earth were the sun was directly overhead at midday, it would be the exact same size in sky at sunset.
If you are going to debate, there has to be a backdrop of facts that we assume are true since we have no good reason for supposing otherwise. The near constant angular size of the sun is one of those facts. If you want to deny it then the burden of proof is on you. It's a fact widely accepted by pretty much the whole of the human race.
Do you see the sun change size in these videos?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odjuOsHYKpA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBLRRtF5YmE
Every single source online simply lists the sun as having an angular diameter of about 0.5°. Nowhere does it say anything about this being dependent on the time of day or the location on Earth.
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/A/Angular+Diameter
That's one example, there are plenty others.
-
Are you claiming, like it is a fact, that the sun does not change in size as it circles above us? You might as well be claiming that there are fairies in the woods behind my house.
-
Are you claiming, like it is a fact, that the sun does not change in size as it circles above us? You might as well be claiming that there are fairies in the woods behind my house.
Below there is a link to a page where someone asks an astronomer why it is that the sun seems to look bigger on the horizon than when it is directly overhead. The astronomer clearly states that this is an illusion and that the sun is the same apparent size on the horizon as it is when it is directly overhead.
Are you going to claim that you know more than an astronomer? Or, perhaps you think she's part of a global conspiracy. If you click on her name you are taken to a page where you can read her credentials including a PH.d from Cornell.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/our-solar-system/the-sun/52-our-solar-system/the-sun/observing-the-sun/190-why-does-the-sun-appear-larger-on-the-horizon-than-overhead-intermediate
If you think she's wrong perhaps you should contact her and let her know, I'm sure she would be most amused to be contacted by a flat Earth proponent.
-
Are you claiming, like it is a fact, that the sun does not change in size as it circles above us? You might as well be claiming that there are fairies in the woods behind my house.
Here is her email.
kristine.spekkens@rmc.ca
If you think she is wrong I really think you should tell her.
-
So, let me get this straight. You are claiming that that one astrologist overrides all of the others who say that the sun does appear to change size as it moves across the sky?
-
So, let me get this straight. You are claiming that that one astrologist overrides all of the others who say that the sun does appear to change size as it moves across the sky?
For a start she's an astronomer, not an astrologist. Why don't you contact her and tell her she's wrong, if you have the balls.
You are profoundly dishonest. How can you in all good conscience keep coming back to these forums knowing that you have never once successfully argued the case for the Earth being flat. You know that the sun's apparent size in the sky doesn't change. I have showed you videos, I have shown a statement from a professional astronomer. Your tactics are despicable. You have no integrity or honour whatsoever. I could provide links to you all day and you would deny them. You are supposedly one of the moderators on this forum, you make it even more of a joke than it already is.
Here are some links to other people who say that the angular size of the sun doesn't change, not astronomers, just general people.
http://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-sun-appear-bigger-during-sunrise-and-sunset-and-not-during-the-noon
http://www.askingtoexpert.com/archive/623/is-the-sun-bigger-at-the-equator.html
http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_does_the_sun_look_larger_at_sunset
Ok, I have provided more than enough evidence to back up my claim.
Now, provide some links to places where people argue that the size of the sun does change size over the course of a day.
-
The Sun does change size during the day. It is a very small (almost unnoticeable) change, but it's apparent if you observe it closely and do the math.
-
Lets do some maths.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBLRRtF5YmE
I would estimate that the sun goes from an angle of elevation of about 10° to and angle of elevation of at least 30°. If you don't agree with these estimates tell me yours.
For flat Earth theory to account for the change in angle of incidence of sunlight over the surface of the Earth, the sun has to be about 4000 miles directly above a point on the Earth.
If the sun is at an angle of elevation of x° then its distance is given by 4000/sin x°. I can show this more fully if you want, it's basic trigonometry.
At an angle of elevation of 10° the sun is at a distance of about 23 000 miles.
At an angle of elevation of 30° the sun is at a distance of about 8 000 miles.
23 000 ÷ 8000 = 2.9 to 1 d.p.
This means that if the sun is 4000 miles above a flat Earth it is 2.9 times further away at the start of this video than at the end. For small angular sizes the relationship between distance and angular size is close to being inversely proportional. We should expect than the sun looks 2.9 times bigger at the end of this video than it does it the start.
Even if my estimates are out you by quite a bit you would still be looking at a noticeable change in angular size. The size of the sun doesn't change at all over the course of this video.
-
The Sun does change size during the day. It is a very small (almost unnoticeable) change, but it's apparent if you observe it closely and do the math.
If the Earth was flat we would notice it change by a significant amount. It would also follow a totally different path across the sky.
-
The Sun does change size during the day. It is a very small (almost unnoticeable) change, but it's apparent if you observe it closely and do the math.
If the Earth was flat we would notice it change by a significant amount. It would also follow a totally different path across the sky.
Why? You clearly do not know much about FET. Our FAQs and Wiki answers all these questions satisfactorily.
-
The Sun does change size during the day. It is a very small (almost unnoticeable) change, but it's apparent if you observe it closely and do the math.
If the Earth was flat we would notice it change by a significant amount. It would also follow a totally different path across the sky.
Why? You clearly do not know much about FET. Our FAQs and Wiki answers all these questions satisfactorily.
I'm always being told by flat Earth proponents that questions have already been answered somewhere else. I can never find these answers when I go to look for them. I have shown that I have a full grasp of the standard flat Earth model. The circular Earth with the North pole at the centre and Antarctica forming an ice wall around the rim. In the reasons for the Earth being round I give above I show clearly that this model fails at every hurdle. It can't account for the angular size of the sun. The distance from the North pole to equator and the circumference of the Equator don't fit. The circumference of the tropic of cancer and the tropic of capricorn don't fit. It can't explain how the sun sets. It's not just a bad model, it is catastrophically wrong.
-
We do have a search engine that you are free to exploit or use as you wish to prove your round Earth theory.
-
The Sun does change size during the day. It is a very small (almost unnoticeable) change, but it's apparent if you observe it closely and do the math.
If the Earth was flat we would notice it change by a significant amount. It would also follow a totally different path across the sky.
Why? You clearly do not know much about FET. Our FAQs and Wiki answers all these questions satisfactorily.
I'm always being told by flat Earth proponents that questions have already been answered somewhere else. I can never find these answers when I go to look for them. I have shown that I have a full grasp of the standard flat Earth model. The circular Earth with the North pole at the centre and Antarctica forming an ice wall around the rim. In the reasons for the Earth being round I give above I show clearly that this model fails at every hurdle. It can't account for the angular size of the sun. The distance from the North pole to equator and the circumference of the Equator don't fit. The circumference of the tropic of cancer and the tropic of capricorn don't fit. It can't explain how the sun sets. It's not just a bad model, it is catastrophically wrong.
Most size discrepancies, especially the ones you are describing, are caused by light passing through the aetheric whirlpool which causes a bending effect. Perspective is also a very important concept as well, and it's something you seem to have a hard time understanding.
-
We do have a search engine that you are free to exploit or use as you wish to prove your round Earth theory.
So you have nothing more to say on this matter.
-
We do have a search engine that you are free to exploit or use as you wish to prove your round Earth theory.
So you have nothing more to say on this matter.
Have you looked out your window lately?
-
We do have a search engine that you are free to exploit or use as you wish to prove your round Earth theory.
So you have nothing more to say on this matter.
Have you looked out your window lately?
That's the only argument I have ever heard you put forward.
The distance to the horizon on a sphere is given by √((R+h)2-R2). Where R is the radius of the sphere and h is the height of your eyes above the sphere.
The angle between two vertical structures on on the surface of sphere is given by 180d/πR. Where d is the distance between the two structures.
If you were standing on a perfectly smooth sphere with a radius of 4000 miles and your eyes were a height of 1.7 metres above the surface of the sphere the horizon would be 2.9 miles away.
The distance between two vertical structures 2.9 miles apart on a sphere with a radius of 4000 miles is 0.04°. From your position to the horizon, the sphere would have curved through an angle of 0.04°, that wouldn't be visible to the naked eye.
If you were standing on a perfectly smooth sphere with a radius of 4000 miles what you would see is essentially an approximately flat circle with a radius of 2.9 miles. It would just seem like a flat plane.
On the Earth there are buildings, trees, hills and a whole host of other features. It is not obvious looking out your window that the Earth is round.
Can you please stop using this lame argument that has been debunked multiple times.
-
Most size discrepancies, especially the ones you are describing, are caused by light passing through the aetheric whirlpool which causes a bending effect. Perspective is also a very important concept as well, and it's something you seem to have a hard time understanding.
When something moves away from you the angle it subtends at your eye gets smaller, subsequently the image it forms on your retina gets smaller. That's why things in the distance look smaller to us. Now, explain to me exactly what it is that I don't understand about perspective.
Enough with the aetheric whirlpools. I got enough of that at the other forum. It's pseudoscientific nonsense. It's one of those "the evidence would indicate that the Earth is round however there are peculiar processes at work" arguments.
I was under the impression that this is a more serious forum, that was clearly a lie.
Explain why my argument is wrong. Explain why what I said about the video of the sun is wrong. That video alone makes a mockery of the whole flat Earth notion.
-
Most size discrepancies, especially the ones you are describing, are caused by light passing through the aetheric whirlpool which causes a bending effect. Perspective is also a very important concept as well, and it's something you seem to have a hard time understanding.
When something moves away from you the angle it subtends at your eye gets smaller, subsequently the image it forms on your retina gets smaller. That's why things in the distance look smaller to us. Now, explain to me exactly what it is that I don't understand about perspective.
Enough with the aetheric whirlpools. I got enough of that at the other forum. It's pseudoscientific nonsense. It's one of those "the evidence would indicate that the Earth is round however there are peculiar processes at work" arguments.
I was under the impression that this is a more serious forum, that was clearly a lie.
Explain why my argument is wrong. Explain why what I said about the video of the sun is wrong. That video alone makes a mockery of the whole flat Earth notion.
I am a proponent of the Aetheric Whirlpool theory. If you want answers not based on that theory, you'll have to ask someone else.
And it's still clear that you don't understand perspective or the phenomenon known as bendy light, all of which has been verified and tested in flat Earth labs. Ever put a pencil in a glass of water? The evidence is right in front of you, yet you simply refuse to accept it due to indoctrination. Once you get past your pre-existing bias, get back to us.
-
Most size discrepancies, especially the ones you are describing, are caused by light passing through the aetheric whirlpool which causes a bending effect. Perspective is also a very important concept as well, and it's something you seem to have a hard time understanding.
When something moves away from you the angle it subtends at your eye gets smaller, subsequently the image it forms on your retina gets smaller. That's why things in the distance look smaller to us. Now, explain to me exactly what it is that I don't understand about perspective.
Enough with the aetheric whirlpools. I got enough of that at the other forum. It's pseudoscientific nonsense. It's one of those "the evidence would indicate that the Earth is round however there are peculiar processes at work" arguments.
I was under the impression that this is a more serious forum, that was clearly a lie.
Explain why my argument is wrong. Explain why what I said about the video of the sun is wrong. That video alone makes a mockery of the whole flat Earth notion.
I am a proponent of the Aetheric Whirlpool theory. If you want answers not based on that theory, you'll have to ask someone else.
And it's still clear that you don't understand perspective or the phenomenon known as bendy light, all of which has been verified and tested in flat Earth labs. Ever put a pencil in a glass of water? The evidence is right in front of you, yet you simply refuse to accept it due to indoctrination. Once you get past your pre-existing bias, get back to us.
The Aetheric Whirlpool isn't a theory. For it to be a proper theory you would have provide a mathematical model. You have to specify some fundamental processes and describe them mathematically.
Flat Earth labs? And where, pray tell, are the flat Earth labs?
Water bends light because of refraction, it is a well understood idea in physics. If you want a really good explanation of this at the quantum level read Richard Feynman's book QED.
Right, so I am indoctrinated. The old fall back position of every flat Earth proponent when they can't argue their case. You are all so tediously predictable. Where is your evidence that I am not thinking for myself. I have put forward 8 arguments that I figured out entirely for myself. I have backed them up with evidence and I have shown that the flat Earth model doesn't even come close to predicting what we say. There is no way of making it work. You have failed to counter any of my arguments yet you are talking to me as if you put me in my place.
I have never in my life come across a more revoltingly dishonest community than that of the flat Earth believers.
-
Most size discrepancies, especially the ones you are describing, are caused by light passing through the aetheric whirlpool which causes a bending effect. Perspective is also a very important concept as well, and it's something you seem to have a hard time understanding.
When something moves away from you the angle it subtends at your eye gets smaller, subsequently the image it forms on your retina gets smaller. That's why things in the distance look smaller to us. Now, explain to me exactly what it is that I don't understand about perspective.
Enough with the aetheric whirlpools. I got enough of that at the other forum. It's pseudoscientific nonsense. It's one of those "the evidence would indicate that the Earth is round however there are peculiar processes at work" arguments.
I was under the impression that this is a more serious forum, that was clearly a lie.
Explain why my argument is wrong. Explain why what I said about the video of the sun is wrong. That video alone makes a mockery of the whole flat Earth notion.
I am a proponent of the Aetheric Whirlpool theory. If you want answers not based on that theory, you'll have to ask someone else.
And it's still clear that you don't understand perspective or the phenomenon known as bendy light, all of which has been verified and tested in flat Earth labs. Ever put a pencil in a glass of water? The evidence is right in front of you, yet you simply refuse to accept it due to indoctrination. Once you get past your pre-existing bias, get back to us.
The Aetheric Whirlpool isn't a theory. For it to be a proper theory you would have provide a mathematical model. You have to specify some fundamental processes and describe them mathematically.
Flat Earth labs? And where, pray tell, are the flat Earth labs?
Water bends light because of refraction, it is a well understood idea in physics. If you want a really good explanation of this at the quantum level read Richard Feynman's book QED.
Right, so I am indoctrinated. The old fall back position of every flat Earth proponent when they can't argue their case. You are all so tediously predictable. Where is your evidence that I am not thinking for myself. I have put forward 8 arguments that I figured out entirely for myself. I have backed them up with evidence and I have shown that the flat Earth model doesn't even come close to predicting what we say. There is no way of making it work. You have failed to counter any of my arguments yet you are talking to me as if you put me in my place.
I have never in my life come across a more revoltingly dishonest community than that of the flat Earth believers.
Refraction is the bending of light. Have you cracked a dictionary lately? It might help you. :)
Here's a few definitions of "Refraction" from multiple sources:
(http://i.imgur.com/wMvsFdm.png)
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction):
"Refraction can be seen when looking into a bowl of water. Air has a refractive index of about 1.0003, and water has a refractive index of about 1.3330. If a person looks at a straight object, such as a pencil or straw, which is placed at a slant, partially in the water, the object appears to bend at the water's surface. This is due to the bending of light rays as they move from the water to the air. "
"Refraction is the bending of a wave when it enters a medium where its speed is different. The refraction of light when it passes from a fast medium to a slow medium bends the light ray toward the normal to the boundary between the two media." Source (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/refr.html)
Basically, if you want to keep denying that refraction is simply bendy light, then you might want to take it up with the authors of these definitions. Although, they are mostly edited by a collective of people on the internet who all seem to agree that refraction = the bending of light.
The important parts are bolded.
So, RE scientists actually say bendy light exists, which is clearly stated above... yet you claim it doesn't? I thought RE was supposed to be a pretty solid model? Do you disagree with other Round Earth points? If so, which ones?
-
Most size discrepancies, especially the ones you are describing, are caused by light passing through the aetheric whirlpool which causes a bending effect. Perspective is also a very important concept as well, and it's something you seem to have a hard time understanding.
When something moves away from you the angle it subtends at your eye gets smaller, subsequently the image it forms on your retina gets smaller. That's why things in the distance look smaller to us. Now, explain to me exactly what it is that I don't understand about perspective.
Enough with the aetheric whirlpools. I got enough of that at the other forum. It's pseudoscientific nonsense. It's one of those "the evidence would indicate that the Earth is round however there are peculiar processes at work" arguments.
I was under the impression that this is a more serious forum, that was clearly a lie.
Explain why my argument is wrong. Explain why what I said about the video of the sun is wrong. That video alone makes a mockery of the whole flat Earth notion.
I am a proponent of the Aetheric Whirlpool theory. If you want answers not based on that theory, you'll have to ask someone else.
And it's still clear that you don't understand perspective or the phenomenon known as bendy light, all of which has been verified and tested in flat Earth labs. Ever put a pencil in a glass of water? The evidence is right in front of you, yet you simply refuse to accept it due to indoctrination. Once you get past your pre-existing bias, get back to us.
The Aetheric Whirlpool isn't a theory. For it to be a proper theory you would have provide a mathematical model. You have to specify some fundamental processes and describe them mathematically.
Flat Earth labs? And where, pray tell, are the flat Earth labs?
Water bends light because of refraction, it is a well understood idea in physics. If you want a really good explanation of this at the quantum level read Richard Feynman's book QED.
Right, so I am indoctrinated. The old fall back position of every flat Earth proponent when they can't argue their case. You are all so tediously predictable. Where is your evidence that I am not thinking for myself. I have put forward 8 arguments that I figured out entirely for myself. I have backed them up with evidence and I have shown that the flat Earth model doesn't even come close to predicting what we say. There is no way of making it work. You have failed to counter any of my arguments yet you are talking to me as if you put me in my place.
I have never in my life come across a more revoltingly dishonest community than that of the flat Earth believers.
Refraction is the bending of light. Have you cracked a dictionary lately? It might help you. :)
Here's a few definitions of "Refraction" from multiple sources:
(http://i.imgur.com/wMvsFdm.png)
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction):
"Refraction can be seen when looking into a bowl of water. Air has a refractive index of about 1.0003, and water has a refractive index of about 1.3330. If a person looks at a straight object, such as a pencil or straw, which is placed at a slant, partially in the water, the object appears to bend at the water's surface. This is due to the bending of light rays as they move from the water to the air. "
"Refraction is the bending of a wave when it enters a medium where its speed is different. The refraction of light when it passes from a fast medium to a slow medium bends the light ray toward the normal to the boundary between the two media." Source (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/refr.html)
Basically, if you want to keep denying that refraction is simply bendy light, then you might want to take it up with the authors of these definitions. Although, they are mostly edited by a collective of people on the internet who all seem to agree that refraction = the bending of light.
The important parts are bolded.
So, RE scientists actually say bendy light exists, which is clearly stated above... yet you claim it doesn't? I thought RE was supposed to be a pretty solid model? Do you disagree with other Round Earth points? If so, which ones?
I said that refraction is the bending of light. What is going on in your head?
-
This discussion is going down the classic route of flat Earth proponents derailing it with irrelevant comments.
1. The angular or apparent size of the sun in the sky does not change significantly. It changes slightly over the course of a year but not by any measurable amount over the course of a day. The only explanation for this is that the diameter of the Earth is negligible compared to the distance to the sun. If the sun is a distant object then all the light from it must be parallel. However, the angle of incoming sunlight is known to change gradually over the surface of the Earth: there are time zones. The only explanation for this is that the Earth is round.
Explain to me clearly why this is wrong.
-
I said that refraction is the bending of light. What is going on in your head?
Good, so now that we've etasblished that bendy light does in fact exist as a legitimate phenomenon, what are you issues with my explanations? You do realize that aether is a medium in which light travels through, yes? It acts similar to water in that it bends the light. Bendy light is clearly elsewhere in nature, so I don't understand why you are denying this.
-
I said that refraction is the bending of light. What is going on in your head?
Good, so now that we've etasblished that bendy light does in fact exist as a legitimate phenomenon, what are you issues with my explanations? You do realize that aether is a medium in which light travels through, yes? It acts similar to water in that it bends the light. Bendy light is clearly elsewhere in nature, so I don't understand why you are denying this.
Where did I deny that light bends? Refraction bends light. I have a degree in Physics. I understand refraction.
How does that explain why my argument is wrong?
-
I said that refraction is the bending of light. What is going on in your head?
Good, so now that we've etasblished that bendy light does in fact exist as a legitimate phenomenon, what are you issues with my explanations? You do realize that aether is a medium in which light travels through, yes? It acts similar to water in that it bends the light. Bendy light is clearly elsewhere in nature, so I don't understand why you are denying this.
You have not said one thing of any substance what so ever in this discussion. All you have done is claim I am wrong, insult me and say things that don't seem to have any relevance.
I have made clear and well thought out arguments which you have not once even attempted to properly argue against.
Where is this going? Do you have anything worth listening to?
-
I said that refraction is the bending of light. What is going on in your head?
Good, so now that we've etasblished that bendy light does in fact exist as a legitimate phenomenon, what are you issues with my explanations? You do realize that aether is a medium in which light travels through, yes? It acts similar to water in that it bends the light. Bendy light is clearly elsewhere in nature, so I don't understand why you are denying this.
Where did I deny that light bends? Refraction bends light. I have a degree in Physics. I understand refraction.
How does that explain why my argument is wrong?
Ok, then. So you believe that bendy light is a real phenomenon. Great!
Now, what's your issue with my explanation of the Sun not changing size? Are you having trouble reading my posts, or are you being obtuse on purpose? I very clearly explained every point to you in a simple way that a child could understand. If you are confused about something, please say so. Posturing and baseless claims (I have a physics degree) mean nothing to us. If you do not know what you're talking about (which is evident), then you're not going to be taken seriously. I am willing to have an adult conversation with you about bendy light and aether, but are you?
You have not said one thing of any substance what so ever in this discussion. All you have done is claim I am wrong, insult me and say things that don't seem to have any relevance.
So you are being obtuse on purpose. I see. Clearly you missed all the times I typed "aether is a dense medium", but I'll say it again.
Aether is a dense medium that bends light, causing a phenomenon similar to refraction which is called bendy light. This phenomenon explains why the Sun does not appear to have a significant change in size over the day.
I'm trying to explain this to you as simple as possible.
-
I said that refraction is the bending of light. What is going on in your head?
Good, so now that we've etasblished that bendy light does in fact exist as a legitimate phenomenon, what are you issues with my explanations? You do realize that aether is a medium in which light travels through, yes? It acts similar to water in that it bends the light. Bendy light is clearly elsewhere in nature, so I don't understand why you are denying this.
Where did I deny that light bends? Refraction bends light. I have a degree in Physics. I understand refraction.
How does that explain why my argument is wrong?
Ok, then. So you believe that bendy light is a real phenomenon. Great!
Now, what's your issue with my explanation of the Sun not changing size? Are you having trouble reading my posts, or are you being obtuse on purpose? I very clearly explained every point to you in a simple way that a child could understand. If you are confused about something, please say so. Posturing and baseless claims (I have a physics degree) mean nothing to us. If you do not know what you're talking about (which is evident), then you're not going to be taken seriously. I am willing to have an adult conversation with you about bendy light and aether, but are you?
You have not said one thing of any substance what so ever in this discussion. All you have done is claim I am wrong, insult me and say things that don't seem to have any relevance.
So you are being obtuse on purpose. I see. Clearly you missed all the times I typed "aether is a dense medium", but I'll say it again.
Aether is a dense medium that bends light, causing a phenomenon similar to refraction which is called bendy light. This phenomenon explains why the Sun does not appear to have a significant change in size over the day.
I'm trying to explain this to you as simple as possible.
Just saying that I don't know what i am talking about means nothing either.
Right, so light bends in something called the aether. We shall put aside for the moment that there is no scientific evidence for such a thing.
How does that manage to make the sun look the same apparent size at any given location on Earth and over the course of a day at any given location?
Drop the obnoxious patronising tone by the way, you are vastly over estimating your own intelligence. Another common trait with flat Earth believers.
-
I am still waiting for some proof that the size of the sun does not change throughout the day. Everything I find either says it does, or it does not because of magical illusions. Which one is it?
-
I am still waiting for some proof that the size of the sun does not change throughout the day. Everything I find either says it does, or it does not because of magical illusions. Which one is it?
I provided you with links, a quote by a professional astronomer, two videos which clearly show the sun not changing its size.
What the fuck is going on in your head? Seriously, are you trolling?
I also analysed the video and showed that if we make the perfectly reasonable assumption that things look smaller when they move further away, the video destroys flat Earth theory.
Where does it say that the sun's angular size changes significantly over the course of a day?
-
I don't believe in astrology, and I find it hard to imagine that black surfers even exist.
-
I don't believe in astrology, and I find it hard to imagine that black surfers even exist.
I am starting to wonder why the Doctors who look after are letting you loose on the internet. I can only assume they are hoping it will help you work through your delusions.
-
I've got a better theory, the flying spaghetti monster blows magic dust in everyone's eyes and this causes them to see the sun as always being the same size.
Well, it has about as much evidence as aetheric whirlpools.
This is a fucking joke.
-
I've got a better theory, the flying spaghetti monster blows magic dust in everyone's eyes and this causes them to see the sun as always being the same size.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Also, please refrain from insulting us in the upper fora. I'm warning you now before one of the mods has to step in.
-
I've got a better theory, the flying spaghetti monster blows magic dust in everyone's eyes and this causes them to see the sun as always being the same size.
Well, it has about as much evidence as aetheric whirlpools.
This is a fucking joke.
I just popped in this thread to see what was going on. I'm once again met with the unwashed masses of round earthies proposing even more fascinating responses. With this degree of content generating ability, perhaps our Angry Ranting or Complete Nonsense forums would be more to your liking.
-
Hi Herewegoround, ever seen the reports of the Japanese soldiers found decades after the war ended that couldn't be convinced they had lost? Their belief systems are so twisted by their need to believe that everything that contradicts it, is propaganda or lies and the people that are saying it are fools or agents of the enemy.
Your attempts to educate are ultimately futile, if you kidnapped them and put them on the space station it would be smoke, mirrors and hallucinogens, find another cause.
Agent and enemy of truth Jura.
-
Hi Herewegoround, ever seen the reports of the Japanese soldiers found decades after the war ended that couldn't be convinced they had lost? Their belief systems are so twisted by their need to believe that everything that contradicts it, is propaganda or lies and the people that are saying it are fools or agents of the enemy.
Your attempts to educate are ultimately futile, if you kidnapped them and put them on the space station it would be smoke, mirrors and hallucinogens, find another cause.
Agent and enemy of truth Jura.
Hello. I started out on the other forum but that become a total joke. People there said there were serious flat Earth believers here who knew how to argue it's case. That was obviously not true, not that my hopes were high.
-
I've got a better theory, the flying spaghetti monster blows magic dust in everyone's eyes and this causes them to see the sun as always being the same size.
Well, it has about as much evidence as aetheric whirlpools.
This is a fucking joke.
I just popped in this thread to see what was going on. I'm once again met with the unwashed masses of round earthies proposing even more fascinating responses. With this degree of content generating ability, perhaps our Angry Ranting or Complete Nonsense forums would be more to your liking.
I have presented 8 strong arguments for the Earth being round. We have been discussing one of them but it degenerated into a complete farce just like every other discussion I have ever had with a flat Earth proponent.
-
Which of your 8 falicies do you want to discuss next?
-
Which of your 8 falicies do you want to discuss next?
You haven't disproved the first one yet.
-
The fist was...?
-
1. The angular or apparent size of the sun in the sky does not change significantly. It changes slightly over the course of a year but not by any measurable amount over the course of a day. The only explanation for this is that the diameter of the Earth is negligible compared to the distance to the sun. If the sun is a distant object then all the light from it must be parallel. However, the angle of incoming sunlight is known to change gradually over the surface of the Earth: there are time zones. The only explanation for this is that the Earth is round.
2. There are circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Their centres of rotation are always either due North or due South respectively. The stars in between rise and set on the horizon much like the sun does. There is no flat Earth model which can account for this.
3. In the summer in Antarctica the sun is visible 24 hours a day. At the same time it is dark 24 hours a day in the Arctic. If the sun is following a giant circle above a flat disc it couldn't possibly be visible at all points around the edge of the disc while not being visible at the centre of the disc.
4. The sun sets. If the sun is following a giant circle above a flat disc it could never be seen to drop to an angle of elevation of less than 0 degrees. Also, its apparent size would change significantly over the course of a day and it would be seen to follow a radically different path in the sky.
5. Ships disappear over the horizon at the exact distance from shore as you would predict them to do if you were standing on a sphere with a radius of 4000 miles. Once they disappear the strongest telescope in the world won't bring them back into view. However, if you climb to higher ground the horizon line moves further away and you can see the ship again. The only explanation for these facts is that the world is round.
6. The curvature of the Earth had to be taken into account when building The Verrazano–Narrows Bridge.
7. The distance from the North Pole to the equator is about 6 200 miles. If the Earth is flat that would mean the equator is a circle with a circumference of 39 000 miles. The equator has a circumference of 25 000 miles.
8. According to the flat Earth model with The North Pole at the centre; the Tropic of Cancer should have a circumference of about 29 000 miles and the Tropic of Capricorn should have a circumference of about 49 000 miles. They both have a circumference of about 23 000 miles. Coupled with the fact that the equator has a circumference of 25 000 miles, this overwhelmingly suggests that the Earth is a spheroid.
1) Aetheric bending of light
2) The stars are caught in two separate aetheric whirlpools above the earth, each rotating differently and separately from each other. This causes the phenomenon known as "circumpolar stars".
3) Many theories have been proposed explaining this, they can be found on our wiki or simply by using the search function.
4) Sun sets have been discussed at length and have been explained several times. Please read the following:
http://wiki.tfes.org/Sunset
http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
5) This question just shows me that you have not browsed any of our already existing material like you claim you have. You are a liar, plain and simple. Please familiarize yourself with the basics of perspective (http://wiki.tfes.org/Basic_Perspective).
6) No it didn't.
7) Have you measured these distances yourself? Where are you getting this information? Please be specific.
8) Once again, where are you getting these numbers and measurements? Please be specific, because they are clearly false and/or assumptions based on a globular Earth model.
Before you post next, please peruse our wiki. It explains each of your points in great detail. It is disingenuous of you to come here, claim that you've read the wiki, and then proceed to post nonsense that clearly shows that you have not read the wiki on any of the subjects you've listed. If you have specific questions about the answers provided in the wiki pages, then ask them... but do not act like you understand FET when you clearly don't.
-
Oh, that is right, you claimed that the size of the sun does not change, and you got your ass handed to you.
-
The fist was...?
I don't think you know what day of the week it is. You are totally deluded.
-
Oh, that is right, you claimed that the size of the sun does not change, and you got your ass handed to you.
When did this happen? You are fucking liar, a revoltingly dishonest excuse for a human being.
-
1. The angular or apparent size of the sun in the sky does not change significantly. It changes slightly over the course of a year but not by any measurable amount over the course of a day. The only explanation for this is that the diameter of the Earth is negligible compared to the distance to the sun. If the sun is a distant object then all the light from it must be parallel. However, the angle of incoming sunlight is known to change gradually over the surface of the Earth: there are time zones. The only explanation for this is that the Earth is round.
2. There are circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Their centres of rotation are always either due North or due South respectively. The stars in between rise and set on the horizon much like the sun does. There is no flat Earth model which can account for this.
3. In the summer in Antarctica the sun is visible 24 hours a day. At the same time it is dark 24 hours a day in the Arctic. If the sun is following a giant circle above a flat disc it couldn't possibly be visible at all points around the edge of the disc while not being visible at the centre of the disc.
4. The sun sets. If the sun is following a giant circle above a flat disc it could never be seen to drop to an angle of elevation of less than 0 degrees. Also, its apparent size would change significantly over the course of a day and it would be seen to follow a radically different path in the sky.
5. Ships disappear over the horizon at the exact distance from shore as you would predict them to do if you were standing on a sphere with a radius of 4000 miles. Once they disappear the strongest telescope in the world won't bring them back into view. However, if you climb to higher ground the horizon line moves further away and you can see the ship again. The only explanation for these facts is that the world is round.
6. The curvature of the Earth had to be taken into account when building The Verrazano–Narrows Bridge.
7. The distance from the North Pole to the equator is about 6 200 miles. If the Earth is flat that would mean the equator is a circle with a circumference of 39 000 miles. The equator has a circumference of 25 000 miles.
8. According to the flat Earth model with The North Pole at the centre; the Tropic of Cancer should have a circumference of about 29 000 miles and the Tropic of Capricorn should have a circumference of about 49 000 miles. They both have a circumference of about 23 000 miles. Coupled with the fact that the equator has a circumference of 25 000 miles, this overwhelmingly suggests that the Earth is a spheroid.
1) Aetheric bending of light
2) The stars are caught in two separate aetheric whirlpools above the earth, each rotating differently and separately from each other. This causes the phenomenon known as "circumpolar stars".
3) Many theories have been proposed explaining this, they can be found on our wiki or simply by using the search function.
4) Sun sets have been discussed at length and have been explained several times. Please read the following:
http://wiki.tfes.org/Sunset
http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
5) This question just shows me that you have not browsed any of other already existing material like you claim you have. You are a liar, plain and simple. Please familiarize yourself with the basics of perspective (http://wiki.tfes.org/Basic_Perspective).
6) No it didn't.
7) Have you measured these distances yourself? Where are you getting this information? Please be specific.
8) Once again, where are you getting these numbers and measurements? Please be specific, because they are clearly false and/or assumptions based on a globular Earth model.
Before you post next, please peruse our wiki. It explains each of your points in great detail. It is disingenuous of you to come here, claim that you've read the wiki, and then proceed to post nonsense that clearly shows that you have not read the wiki on any of the subjects you've listed. If you have specific questions about the answers provided in the wiki pages, then ask them... but do not act like you understand FET when you clear don't.
What a load of unscientific, dishonest, incomprehensible bullshit. You're profoundly dishonest and totally deluded. Your aetheric whirlpools prove nothing. Idiot.
-
The fist was...?
I don't think you know what day of the week it is. You are totally deluded.
That sounds like something a person would say when they have been beaten.
-
What a load of unscientific, dishonest, incomprehensible bullshit. You're profoundly dishonest and totally deluded. Your aetheric whirlpools prove nothing. Idiot.
This coming from the person who does not understand basic perspective (http://wiki.tfes.org/Basic_Perspective) concepts.
Please. ::)
-
Flat Earth tactics:
1. Claim you have answered questions that haven't answered.
2. Propose pseudo-scietnifc nonsensical concepts to twist the evidence that suggests the Earth is round into evidence for the Earth being flat. I call them, "the evidence suggests the Earth is round but there peculiar processes at work" arguments.
3. Say random things that don't make sense.
4. Deny simple universally excepted facts about the world.
5. Claim anyone who disagrees is indoctrinated.
6. Talk in a supercilious arrogant manner and insult anyone who disagrees.
-
What a load of unscientific, dishonest, incomprehensible bullshit. You're profoundly dishonest and totally deluded. Your aetheric whirlpools prove nothing. Idiot.
This coming from the person who does not understand basic perspective (http://wiki.tfes.org/Basic_Perspective) concepts.
Please. ::)
What evidence have you got that I don't understand perspective.
An object subtends an angle at the eye. The angle gets smaller as the object moves away, subsequently the image formed on the retina gets smaller.
Now, explain to me what I don't understand about perspective.
You seem to think that the apparent size of an object doesn't change when it move further away.
-
6. Talk in a supercilious arrogant manner and insult anyone who disagrees.
The fist was...?
I don't think you know what day of the week it is. You are totally deluded.
Oh, that is right, you claimed that the size of the sun does not change, and you got your ass handed to you.
When did this happen? You are fucking liar, a revoltingly dishonest excuse for a human being.
I don't believe in astrology, and I find it hard to imagine that black surfers even exist.
I am starting to wonder why the Doctors who look after are letting you loose on the internet. I can only assume they are hoping it will help you work through your delusions.
Do you want me to go on?
Honestly, I'd just like to discuss FET with you... but if you're going to rely on insults then this isn't going to work. You are being immature.
-
6. Talk in a supercilious arrogant manner and insult anyone who disagrees.
The fist was...?
I don't think you know what day of the week it is. You are totally deluded.
Oh, that is right, you claimed that the size of the sun does not change, and you got your ass handed to you.
When did this happen? You are fucking liar, a revoltingly dishonest excuse for a human being.
I don't believe in astrology, and I find it hard to imagine that black surfers even exist.
I am starting to wonder why the Doctors who look after are letting you loose on the internet. I can only assume they are hoping it will help you work through your delusions.
Do you want me to go on?
Honestly, I'd just like to discuss FET with you... but if you're going to rely on insults then this isn't going to work. You are being immature.
I tried to have serious discussion, you are the one who derailed it with illogical nonsense. How else am I supposed to talk to two people as dishonest as you and jroa?
You haven't properly countered a single argument of mine. Even when I was prepared to let you use the aether you still couldn't argue your case.
-
I can't be bothered with this. It is clear now that this forum is as jam packed with lying cunts as the other one.
Believe what you want fuck head, I couldn't give a fuck. You're a lying piece of shit.
Anyone with half a brain who is capable of understanding a real argument will see that you proved nothing.
-
I can't be bothered with this. It is clear now that this forum is as jam packed with lying cunts as the other one.
Believe what you want fuck head, I couldn't give a fuck. You're a lying piece of shit.
Anyone with half a brain who is capable of understanding a real argument will see that you proved nothing.
I am willingly to have an adult conversation with you about these topics, but if you can't control your emotions and resort to constant outbursts then I'm afraid this is where we part ways. Goodbye.
-
I can't be bothered with this. It is clear now that this forum is as jam packed with lying cunts as the other one.
Believe what you want fuck head, I couldn't give a fuck. You're a lying piece of shit.
Anyone with half a brain who is capable of understanding a real argument will see that you proved nothing.
should have listened, now you are going to have a heart attack.
-
I can't be bothered with this. It is clear now that this forum is as jam packed with lying cunts as the other one.
Believe what you want fuck head, I couldn't give a fuck. You're a lying piece of shit.
Anyone with half a brain who is capable of understanding a real argument will see that you proved nothing.
I am willingly to have an adult conversation with you about these topics, but if you can't control your emotions and resort to constant outbursts then I'm afraid this is where we part ways. Goodbye.
You phoney bastard. You have done nothing but evade, lie and pretend you have a real case. I am not emotional, I am just not going to pretend this is a real discussion. You allow yourself to make up phoney pseudo-scientific concepts and give yourself carte blanche to give it any property you want. I on the other hand stuck to logic and what is widely accepted to be true by the whole human race. I debate according to well established rules. You play by whatever rules you want. Using aetheric whirlpools, excuse me while a stifle a laugh, is like playing a game of chess and introducing a piece on the board that you can move anywhere at anytime, take any piece you want and make immune from being taken.
Who would play chess with someone playing by those rules?
The aether is a concept you use to explain why the evidence suggests the Earth is round. If an object is moving around but its apparent size doesn't change the most obvious explanation is that the object's distance isn't changing significantly. That's the most obvious explanation for the constant size of the sun. It's the explanation that any right minded sane person would assume. However, it fucks flat Earth theory because if the sun's size doesn't change anywhere on Earth is must be a long way away. So you invent some bullshit idea to explain that away. It's dishonest, plain and simple.
-
Aether is no different than gravity. You cannot see gravity. You can't touch it. You can't even detect it. Yet, you still use gravity to explain your globular Earth theory. How is that any different than what I am doing? You believe things magically float in a void with nothing holding them up. That sounds pretty nonsensical to me. At least we have a force that holds up the heavens, it's called Universal Acceleration and it's most likely caused by the aether. We know Universal Acceleration exists because everything falls at the same rate. That is not a coincidence.
You seem to be assuming things here. I never stated that aether was a real thing. I simply use it in my model as a place holder for the cause of what I (and everyone else) observes. I am not an FE'er per se, but a Dual Earther... meaning I am open to the possibility of both a flat and round Earth. Currently, the overwhelming observational evidence supports flatness. You would see this too if you were able to get over your bias. Simply look out your window or observe a ship passing over the "horizon" (learn about perspective, btw). Both are great indicators of flatness.
I am more than willing to change my views if you can provide ONE sound argument that doesn't already have a scientific explanation. All of your arguments are old, reused, and simply boring. They have all been explained and I have given you ample tools to discover these explanations in the form of links and my own typed word.
I would appreciate it if you discussed my explanations and theories instead of trying to take shots at my own character. Is this how you normally conduct debates?
-
Aether is no different than gravity. You cannot see gravity. You can't touch it. You can't even detect it. Yet, you still use gravity to explain your globular Earth theory. How is that any different than what I am doing? You believe things magically float in a void with nothing holding them up. That sounds pretty nonsensical to me. At least we have a force that holds up the heavens, it's called Universal Acceleration and it's most likely caused by the aether. We know Universal Acceleration exists because everything falls at the same rate. That is not a coincidence.
You seem to be assuming things here. I never stated that aether was a real thing. I simply use it in my model as a place holder for the cause of what I (and everyone else) observes. I am not an FE'er per se, but a Dual Earther... meaning I am open to the possibility of both a flat and round Earth. Currently, the overwhelming observational evidence supports flatness. You would see this too if you were able to get over your bias. Simply look out your window or observe a ship passing over the "horizon" (learn about perspective, btw). Both are great indicators of flatness.
I am more than willing to change my views if you can provide ONE sound argument that doesn't already have a scientific explanation. All of your arguments are old, reused, and simply boring. They have all been explained and I have given you ample tools to discover these explanations in the form of links and my own typed word.
I would appreciate it if you discussed my explanations and theories instead of trying to take shots at my own character. Is this how you normally conduct debates?
We have a precise mathematical description of gravity which can be used to make astonishingly accurate predictions. You don't have that for the aether. The aether at the moment is little more than magic. It can do anything you want it to do. Gravity can't do anything scientists want it to do. It makes very specific predictions. If those predictions weren't observed it would be dropped.
When you invoked the aether as an argument I assumed you thought it was a real thing. I can see now how silly that was of me.
So ships passing over the horizon are now evidence of a flat Earth? Right, ok. I missed that meeting.
Once again you are just stating that my arguments are tired and old and have been answered.
This is a waste of time. You allow yourself to deny anything you want. You allow yourself to make concepts that have no justification.
I am playing by rules, you aren't.
You can say anything you want. Make up anything you want.
I stick to what makes sense and fits with what has been well established about the world.
I've said before, the aether is something you and your pals invented to explain why all the evidence, on the face of it, suggests overwhelmingly that the Earth is round.
-
Well, that just depends. Mathematical predictions are rather easily fudged and can even lead to incorrect assumptions. For example, they still teach Newton's Gravity equation in grade school, which more or less states that Gravity is directly related to the mass of two bodies and you can calculate that force based on those two bodies. At least, that's what someone who assumes because the answer is "right-ish" that would be the case. The only problem is that such a statement is completely wrong. Gravity is directly related to the total energy of two bodies, not their mass. It just so happens that mass makes up the largest portion of a body's energy, which is why the equation is "seems like it is correct" but horrifically breaks down when more accurate results are needed (which is admittedly rare).
Thus, dismissing the idea based on "I don't see any math" is just as ridiculous as me dismissing the math because there is no idea. The two aren't related enough to draw conclusions from one in order to influence the other. Theory and math do go hand in hand, and while it'd be great to have both, it isn't necessary.
-
I can't be bothered with this. It is clear now that this forum is as jam packed with lying cunts as the other one.
Believe what you want fuck head, I couldn't give a fuck. You're a lying piece of shit.
Anyone with half a brain who is capable of understanding a real argument will see that you proved nothing.
Since you have had multiple outbursts already, please consider this your only warning. Further insults will result in at least a 3 day ban.
-
Well, that just depends. Mathematical predictions are rather easily fudged and can even lead to incorrect assumptions. For example, they still teach Newton's Gravity equation in grade school, which more or less states that Gravity is directly related to the mass of two bodies and you can calculate that force based on those two bodies. At least, that's what someone who assumes because the answer is "right-ish" that would be the case. The only problem is that such a statement is completely wrong. Gravity is directly related to the total energy of two bodies, not their mass. It just so happens that mass makes up the largest portion of a body's energy, which is why the equation is "seems like it is correct" but horrifically breaks down when more accurate results are needed (which is admittedly rare).
Thus, dismissing the idea based on "I don't see any math" is just as ridiculous as me dismissing the math because there is no idea. The two aren't related enough to draw conclusions from one in order to influence the other. Theory and math do go hand in hand, and while it'd be great to have both, it isn't necessary.
Mathematical physical theories are always used at the level approximation that is appropriate. What does that prove? Newton's laws and Newton's universal law of gravitation are still remarkably accurate for many purposes. Sometimes a more deeper level of understanding is required. That's how science works.
There is nothing even comparable to that with the aether concept. It is little more than magic induced to twist evidence for the Earth being round into evidence for the Earth being flat.
All the arguments I have presented are based an assuming that the world works in the normal ways that are widely accepted. Not anything esoteric. Just the normal things we all expect.
The only way you can make flat Earth theory work is by either invoking all sorts of mysterious processes or by point black refusing to accept simple facts. You can see examples of both of these in this discussion. Jroa tried to deny that the angular size of the sun is constant, Vauxhall accepted that it is but tried to explain it away using a pseudo-scientific concept. Interestingly enough they both ganged up on me as if they were on the same side but they were totally contradicting one another.
-
Well, that just depends. Mathematical predictions are rather easily fudged and can even lead to incorrect assumptions. For example, they still teach Newton's Gravity equation in grade school, which more or less states that Gravity is directly related to the mass of two bodies and you can calculate that force based on those two bodies. At least, that's what someone who assumes because the answer is "right-ish" that would be the case. The only problem is that such a statement is completely wrong. Gravity is directly related to the total energy of two bodies, not their mass. It just so happens that mass makes up the largest portion of a body's energy, which is why the equation is "seems like it is correct" but horrifically breaks down when more accurate results are needed (which is admittedly rare).
Thus, dismissing the idea based on "I don't see any math" is just as ridiculous as me dismissing the math because there is no idea. The two aren't related enough to draw conclusions from one in order to influence the other. Theory and math do go hand in hand, and while it'd be great to have both, it isn't necessary.
Mathematical physical theories are always used at the level approximation that is appropriate. What does that prove? Newton's laws and Newton's universal law of gravitation are still remarkably accurate for many purposes. Sometimes a more deeper level of understanding is required. That's how science works.
There is nothing even comparable to that with the aether concept. It is little more than magic induced to twist evidence for the Earth being round into evidence for the Earth being flat.
All the argument I have presented are based an assuming that the world works in the normal ways that are widely accepted. Not anything esoteric. Just the normal things we all expect.
The only way you can make flat Earth theory work is by either invoking all sorts of mysterious processes or by point black refusing to accept simple facts. You can see examples of both of theses in this discussion. Jroa tried to deny that the angular size of the sun is constant, Vauxhall accepted that it is but tried to explain it away using a pseudo-scientific concept. Interestingly enough they both ganged up on me as if they were on the same side but they were totally contradicting one another.
We all have different theories when it comes to the flat Earth model. Did you expect us to be bots spouting the same answers each time someone asks a question?
Welcome to the human race, buddy. We are not a Borg hivemind.
That being said, all your math is purely theoretical. It does not explain anything in nature at all, except what you have deemed it to explain. It's easy to say "gravity exists, it's what keeps the planets floating in space" and then work backwards from that while making up maths along the way. But that's not proper science. First you have to start with an observation, then formulate the explanation and test it. First problem, how can you observe gravity? That is outrageous and impossible. Just like the theory of dark matter... it's an absolute farce. It's theoretical... and that's why it's called a theory to begin with. You are severely misunderstanding the scientific process and the terms associated with that process. If anything, my aether model just shows how ridiculous gravity is... because it's basically a substitute for gravity, and it's equally valid because it's equally nonsensical.
There is no evidence for gravity. Period. You can pull out whatever math problem you want, but until you can show me gravity particles... you've got nothing.
Also, saying that we have no math is a complete lie as well. For someone who claims to have read our material, you certainly don't seem to understand it and have forgotten about 90% of it... which leads me to believe that you simply lied.
We have solid maths proving that the Sun is merely about 3000 miles away.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/4/40/Flatrth.png/300px-Flatrth.png)
A little trigonometry shows that
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/f/f4/Flateqn.png/300px-Flateqn.png)
Using the values 50 degrees and 60 degrees as measured on the trip, with b=1000 miles, we find that h is approximately 2000 miles. Continuing the calculation, we find that a is approximately 2400 miles and the two distances R1 and R2 are approximately 3000 and 3900 miles, respectively.
Of course, you would have known this if you had actually read our material instead of claiming to have read our material. Cutting corners makes you look like a lazy person. You came here thinking you were at the top of your game, maybe you would type up a few posts and show us FE'ers how retarded we are, but it looks like your plan has seriously backfired. You are not as genius as you think you are, and this attempt at exercising your superiority over a scientific minority is very telling.
-
Well, that just depends. Mathematical predictions are rather easily fudged and can even lead to incorrect assumptions. For example, they still teach Newton's Gravity equation in grade school, which more or less states that Gravity is directly related to the mass of two bodies and you can calculate that force based on those two bodies. At least, that's what someone who assumes because the answer is "right-ish" that would be the case. The only problem is that such a statement is completely wrong. Gravity is directly related to the total energy of two bodies, not their mass. It just so happens that mass makes up the largest portion of a body's energy, which is why the equation is "seems like it is correct" but horrifically breaks down when more accurate results are needed (which is admittedly rare).
Thus, dismissing the idea based on "I don't see any math" is just as ridiculous as me dismissing the math because there is no idea. The two aren't related enough to draw conclusions from one in order to influence the other. Theory and math do go hand in hand, and while it'd be great to have both, it isn't necessary.
Mathematical physical theories are always used at the level approximation that is appropriate. What does that prove? Newton's laws and Newton's universal law of gravitation are still remarkably accurate for many purposes. Sometimes a more deeper level of understanding is required. That's how science works.
There is nothing even comparable to that with the aether concept. It is little more than magic induced to twist evidence for the Earth being round into evidence for the Earth being flat.
All the argument I have presented are based an assuming that the world works in the normal ways that are widely accepted. Not anything esoteric. Just the normal things we all expect.
The only way you can make flat Earth theory work is by either invoking all sorts of mysterious processes or by point black refusing to accept simple facts. You can see examples of both of theses in this discussion. Jroa tried to deny that the angular size of the sun is constant, Vauxhall accepted that it is but tried to explain it away using a pseudo-scientific concept. Interestingly enough they both ganged up on me as if they were on the same side but they were totally contradicting one another.
We all have different theories when it comes to the flat Earth model. Did you expect us to be bots spouting the same answers each time someone asks a question?
Welcome to the human race, buddy. We are not a Borg hivemind.
That being said, all your math is purely theoretical. It does not explain anything in nature at all, except what you have deemed it to explain. It's easy to say "gravity exists, it's what keeps the planets floating in space" and then work backwards from that while making up maths along the way. But that's not proper science. First you have to start with an observation, then formulate the explanation and test it. First problem, how can you observe gravity? That is outrageous and impossible. Just like the theory of dark matter... it's an absolute farce. It's theoretical... and that's why it's called a theory to begin with. You are severely misunderstanding the scientific process and the terms associated with that process. If anything, my aether model just shows how ridiculous gravity is... because it's basically a substitute for gravity, and it's equally valid because it's equally nonsensical.
There is no evidence for gravity. Period. You can pull out whatever math problem you want, but until you can show me gravity particles... you've got nothing.
Also, saying that we have no math is a complete lie as well. For someone who claims to have read our material, you certainly don't seem to understand it and have forgotten about 90% of it... which leads me to believe that you simply lied.
We have solid maths proving that the Sun is merely about 3000 miles away.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/4/40/Flatrth.png/300px-Flatrth.png)
A little trigonometry shows that
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/f/f4/Flateqn.png/300px-Flateqn.png)
Using the values 50 degrees and 60 degrees as measured on the trip, with b=1000 miles, we find that h is approximately 2000 miles. Continuing the calculation, we find that a is approximately 2400 miles and the two distances R1 and R2 are approximately 3000 and 3900 miles, respectively.
Of course, you would have known this if you had actually read our material instead of claiming to have read our material. Cutting corners makes you look like a lazy person. You came here thinking you were at the top of your game, maybe you would type up a few posts and show us FE'ers how retarded we are, but it looks like your plan has seriously backfired. You are not as genius as you think you are, and this attempt at exercising your superiority over a scientific minority is very telling.
The evidence for gravity is massive. The evidence for the aether is none.
There is no flat Earth model that either you all agree on or that can explain all the facts. There is only one round Earth model which is based on common sense interpretations of the facts. I was pointing out that there are various flat Earth tactics for avoiding the obvious: namely the earth is round. You used one and jroa used another.
The angle of incidence of sunlight changes gradually over the face of the Earth. There are two explanations. The Earth is flat and the sun is a few thousand miles away or the Earth is round and the sun is a long way away compared to the diameter of the Earth. The facts actually indicate, assuming the Earth is flat, that the sun is about 4000 miles away. No matter.
If the sun was somewhere between 2000 and 4000 miles above a flat Earth, its distance from any given observer would change significantly over the course of a day. The most common sense expectation would be that its apparent size would change significantly. It doesn't. jroa tried to deny that, you tried to explain it with a phoney concept you can give no account of.
The path the sun follows across the sky would also be dramatically different. Still, never mind, you have the magic aether that can do anything.
Poor old me, I'm stuck with facts and logic. I don't stand a chance.
-
By your own admission, you can't argue with math... and the math shows that sun is about 3000 miles away.
The sun seemingly remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmosphere. I do maintain that the sun does change size, slightly, throughout the day, however. It is barely noticeable, so it's not really worth mentioning.
Here are some wise words from Samuel Rowbotham himself:
"It is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense
medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when
it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the
medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or
foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a
few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame;
on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere
will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a
greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and
vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset,
the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than
at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and
holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through
which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or
magnified, as well as modified in colour."
-
By your own admission, you can't argue with math... and the math shows that sun is about 3000 miles away.
The sun seemingly remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmosphere. I do maintain that the sun does change size, slightly, throughout the day, however. It is barely noticeable, so it's not really worth mentioning.
Here are some wise words from Samuel Rowbotham himself:
"It is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense
medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when
it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the
medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or
foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a
few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame;
on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere
will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a
greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and
vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset,
the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than
at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and
holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through
which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or
magnified, as well as modified in colour."
You can't argue with maths and if you take into account the changing angle of the incidence of sunlight, as I said, there are two interpretations. The Earth is flat and the sun is a few thousand miles away or the Earth is round and the sun is a long way away.
If you also take into account the near constant angular size of the sun at any location on Earth, the most obvious and common sense assumption is that the Earth is round and the sun is a long way away. Can you see what I mean, the evidence on the face of it, would suggest overwhelmingly that the Earth is round.
However, you have a pseudo-scientific concept which can do anything you want it to do. It's the magic chess piece. Once again, I'm stuck trying to make sense of things in terms of what are well established facts about the world. You are allowing yourself to invent a concept and use it to twist, what on the face of it are strong reasons for assuming the Earth is round, into reasons for assuming the Earth is flat.
Can't you at least have the honesty and integrity to admit that on the face of it, the most obvious explanation is that the Earth is round?
-
By your own admission, you can't argue with math... and the math shows that sun is about 3000 miles away.
The sun seemingly remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmosphere. I do maintain that the sun does change size, slightly, throughout the day, however. It is barely noticeable, so it's not really worth mentioning.
Here are some wise words from Samuel Rowbotham himself:
"It is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense
medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when
it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the
medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or
foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a
few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame;
on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere
will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a
greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and
vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset,
the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than
at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and
holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through
which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or
magnified, as well as modified in colour."
You can't argue with maths and if you take into account the changing angle of the incidence of sunlight, as I said, there are two interpretations. The Earth is flat and the sun is a few thousand miles away or the Earth is round and the sun is a long way away.
If you also take into account the near constant angular size of the sun at any location on Earth, the most obvious and common sense assumption is that the Earth is round and the sun is a long way away. Can you see what I mean, the evidence on the face of it, would suggest overwhelmingly that the Earth is round.
However, you have a pseudo-scientific concept which can do anything you want it to do. It's the magic chess piece. Once again, I'm stuck trying to make sense of things in terms of what are well established facts about the world. You are allowing yourself to invent a concept and use it to twist, what on the face of it are strong reasons for assuming the Earth is round, into reasons for assuming the Earth is flat.
Can't you at least have the honesty and integrity to admit that on the face of it, the most obvious explanation is that the Earth is round?
Occam's razor supports a flat Earth. As far as "you can't argue with maths", I'm not sure I understand your point. You certainly seem to think that math wins debates. I'm sorry... but are the "rules" different for you? Am I not allowed to use math now? Please let me know what rules I should be following in this debate. Thanks.
-
By your own admission, you can't argue with math... and the math shows that sun is about 3000 miles away.
The sun seemingly remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmosphere. I do maintain that the sun does change size, slightly, throughout the day, however. It is barely noticeable, so it's not really worth mentioning.
Here are some wise words from Samuel Rowbotham himself:
"It is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense
medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when
it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the
medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or
foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a
few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame;
on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere
will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a
greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and
vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset,
the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than
at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and
holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through
which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or
magnified, as well as modified in colour."
You can't argue with maths and if you take into account the changing angle of the incidence of sunlight, as I said, there are two interpretations. The Earth is flat and the sun is a few thousand miles away or the Earth is round and the sun is a long way away.
If you also take into account the near constant angular size of the sun at any location on Earth, the most obvious and common sense assumption is that the Earth is round and the sun is a long way away. Can you see what I mean, the evidence on the face of it, would suggest overwhelmingly that the Earth is round.
However, you have a pseudo-scientific concept which can do anything you want it to do. It's the magic chess piece. Once again, I'm stuck trying to make sense of things in terms of what are well established facts about the world. You are allowing yourself to invent a concept and use it to twist, what on the face of it are strong reasons for assuming the Earth is round, into reasons for assuming the Earth is flat.
Can't you at least have the honesty and integrity to admit that on the face of it, the most obvious explanation is that the Earth is round?
Occam's razor supports a flat Earth. As far as "you can't argue with maths", I'm not sure I understand your point. You certainly seem to think that math wins debates. I'm sorry... but are the "rules" different for you? Am I not allowed to use math now? Please let me know what rules I should be following in this debate. Thanks.
What? When it comes to a simple geometric question like the shape of the Earth maths does win the debate. When did I say or imply you can't you use maths?
You aren't making any sense.
The change in angle of incidence of sunlight over the surface of the Earth suggests the Earth is flat with the sun a few thousand miles away or that the Earth is round with the sun a long way away.
The apparent size of the sun doesn't change significantly over the course of a day or at different locations around the Earth.
Can you be honest enough to admit that the most common sense interpretation of these facts, based on our everyday experience of the world, is that the Earth is round
-
When did I say or imply you can't you use maths?
You can't argue with maths
I am being completely honest with you. Are you sure you're feeling ok?
-
You can't argue with maths
I am being completely honest with you. Are you sure you're feeling ok?
You are avoiding the issue.
Can you be honest enough to admit that the most common sense interpretation of these facts, based on our everyday experience of the world, is that the Earth is round?
-
You can't argue with maths
I am being completely honest with you. Are you sure you're feeling ok?
You are avoiding the issue.
Can you be honest enough to admit that the most common sense interpretation of these facts, based on our everyday experience of the world, is that the Earth is round?
I am asking why I cannot use math in this argument and you are avoiding the question. I am not the one avoiding anything here, you are.
You can't argue with maths
Please explain to me why you are now claiming that you never said this.
-
When did I say or imply you can't you use maths?
You can't argue with maths
I am being completely honest with you. Are you sure you're feeling ok?
When I said, you can't argue with maths, I meant in a general way. I didn't mean you specifically can't argue with maths. I meant that maths can't be argued with by anyone including me.
Really, I don't believe you didn't understand that.
-
You are just creating phoney problems to avoid the issue.
The most obvious and common sense explanation for the changing angle of incidence of sunlight over the surface of the Earth and the almost constant angular size of the sun is that the Earth is round.
Can you be honest enough to admit that?
-
Can you be honest enough to admit that?
Why do you keep saying this? It would be absolutely dishonest for me to say that the Earth is round when I have never actually seen the curvature of the Earth or Earth from space.
I have given you my opinions on the subject already. You seem to be ignoring the answers given because you simply do not like them. That's not my problem.
It is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium... This is basic stuff, man. C'mon. I know you don't like this explanation, but it's based on observable phenomenon and holds up. Are you denying that light appears magnified when travelling through a dense medium? Do you have evidence to support this?
-
Can you be honest enough to admit that?
Why do you keep saying this? It would be absolutely dishonest for me to say that the Earth is round when I have never actually seen the curvature of the Earth or Earth from space.
I have given you my opinions on the subject already. You seem to be ignoring the answers given because you simply do not like them. That's not my problem.
It is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium... This is basic stuff, man. C'mon. I know you don't like this explanation, but it's based on observable phenomenon and holds up. Are you denying that light appears magnified when travelling through a dense medium? Do you have evidence to support this?
I'm not asking you to admit the Earth is round. I am asking to admit that it is a reasonable assumption to make, given the changing angle of incidence of sunlight and the unchanging angular size of the sun, that the Earth is round.
Even allowing for changes in density of medium, how could the sun appear pretty much the same size all the time to every single person on Earth if it is a few thousand miles away?
It would be as if some force was conspiring to make it seem like the Earth was round.
A round Earth is the most obvious and common sense conclusion. I'm not asking you to believe it, I'm just asking you to acknowledge that it is the most obvious and common sense conclusion given what we see in our everyday lives.
-
A round Earth is the most obvious and common sense conclusion. I'm not asking you to believe it, I'm just asking you to acknowledge that it is the most obvious and common sense conclusion given what we see in our everyday lives.
But it's not the common sense conclusion. It might be the common sense conclusion for you because you already believe that the Earth is round, but for me there are too many other variables involved... including light moving through a dense medium. You are displaying confirmation bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
-
A round Earth is the most obvious and common sense conclusion. I'm not asking you to believe it, I'm just asking you to acknowledge that it is the most obvious and common sense conclusion given what we see in our everyday lives.
But it's not the common sense conclusion. It might be the common sense conclusion for you because you already believe that the Earth is round, but for me there are too many other variables involved... including light moving through a dense medium. You are displaying confirmation bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
No, I'm not. That's a totally dishonest argument. Anyone would argue that the most obvious conclusion is that the Earth is round.
You have postulated a process by which the size of the sun might be distorted. You haven't given any account of how this could make the apparent size of the sun almost completely constant everywhere on Earth and over the course of a given day at any given location. Until you do that you haven't done anything.
-
A round Earth is the most obvious and common sense conclusion. I'm not asking you to believe it, I'm just asking you to acknowledge that it is the most obvious and common sense conclusion given what we see in our everyday lives.
But it's not the common sense conclusion. It might be the common sense conclusion for you because you already believe that the Earth is round, but for me there are too many other variables involved... including light moving through a dense medium. You are displaying confirmation bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
No, I'm not. That's a totally dishonest argument. Anyone would argue that the most obvious conclusion is that the Earth is round.
You have postulated a process by which the size of the sun might be distorted. You haven't given any account of how this could make the apparent size of the sun almost completely constant everywhere on Earth and over the course of a given day at any given location. Until you do that you haven't done anything.
Now you are using yet another fallacious argument...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Regardless, you obviously lack a fundamental understanding of our flat Earth model. You do know that the Sun itself moves above the Earth, right? The Sun is going to look a similar size to everyone for this reason, mixed with the fact that light is travelling through a dense medium which distorts its image. Are you trying to claim now that the Earth has no atmosphere for the light to travel through????
-
A round Earth is the most obvious and common sense conclusion. I'm not asking you to believe it, I'm just asking you to acknowledge that it is the most obvious and common sense conclusion given what we see in our everyday lives.
But it's not the common sense conclusion. It might be the common sense conclusion for you because you already believe that the Earth is round, but for me there are too many other variables involved... including light moving through a dense medium. You are displaying confirmation bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
No, I'm not. That's a totally dishonest argument. Anyone would argue that the most obvious conclusion is that the Earth is round.
You have postulated a process by which the size of the sun might be distorted. You haven't given any account of how this could make the apparent size of the sun almost completely constant everywhere on Earth and over the course of a given day at any given location. Until you do that you haven't done anything.
Now you are using yet another fallacious argument...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Regardless, you obviously lack a fundamental understanding of our flat Earth model. You do know that the Sun itself moves above the Earth, right? The Sun is going to look a similar size to everyone for this reason, mixed with the fact that light is travelling through a dense medium which distorts its image. Are you trying to claim now that the Earth has no atmosphere for the light to travel through????
The equator is about 6 200 miles from the North Pole. Well, in the real world it is, I don't know how far you think it is. If you were on the equator during the equinox at midday, the sun would be directly overhead. If the sun is following a giant circle 3000 miles above the earth centred at the equator, then 12 hours later it will be above a point on the Earth 12 4000 miles away. From Pythagorus it will be 12 800 miles away, about 4 times further away than when it was directly overhead. From trigonometry it will be at angle of elevation of 14°. The first point is that it should still be visible. Or, if not it for some reason, it should never have been observed to drop to an angle of elevation of less than 0° i.e. set.
Can you explain how it is that the density of the aether can make the sun appear the same size to all the observers on the equator as the sun followed its circular path and also to every other observer on Earth.
This aether has got have some pretty remarkable properties. It's go to make the sun look the same size to people who are directly underneath to people who are thousands of miles away.
Again, the most obvious interpretation of the facts is that the Earth is round.
-
Did you measure these distances yourself?
Of course when you take RE measurements you're going to get a model that makes the Earth look round. That's why it's called Round Earth Theory. However, many of us here do not trust the values you are giving. It is also extremely unwise to simply believe everything you read in a text book or government source. You really need to do the measurements yourself before you can claim that they are correct.
-
Did you measure these distances yourself?
Of course when you take RE measurements you're going to get a model that makes the Earth look round. That's why it's called Round Earth Theory. However, many of us here do not trust the values you are giving. It is also extremely unwise to simply believe everything you read in a text book or government source. You really need to do the measurements yourself before you can claim that they are correct.
Ok, so lets get this straight. You are suggesting that the distance from the North Pole to the equator isn't 6 200 miles. This, along with many others, is a basic fact about the world that is used by thousands of people in their everyday lives. Including pilots, air traffic controllers, navigators, meteorologists, cartographers, sailors and the military. So either all these people are colluding in a conspiracy or they are all too stupid to notice that all the facts they use don't add and don't make sense.
What do you think the distance between the North pole and the equator is? No matter what it is, if the Earth is flat and the sun is moving in a circle 3000 miles above it, its distance to different observes is going to change significantly over the course of a day.
How does the aether manage to make it look almost the same size to all of them all the time?
-
Well, it's late and I need to sleep.
The angle of incidence of sunlight changes gradually over the surface of the Earth. The apparent size of the sun is the same everywhere on Earth and the same over the course of a day at any given location.
The most obvious explanation for these facts is that the Earth is round.
The aether is a patch designed to explain these facts. However, on a flat Earth the distance from an observer to the sun would change radically from observer to observer, from 3000 up to 12 000 miles. So, the aether would have to have the remarkable property of making the sun seem the exact same size to any observer no matter how far they were from the sun.
-
I think this conversation needs to be rebooted again.
Here's a point from the first post:
3. In the summer in Antarctica the sun is visible 24 hours a day. At the same time it is dark 24 hours a day in the Arctic. If the sun is following a giant circle above a flat disc it couldn't possibly be visible at all points around the edge of the disc while not being visible at the center of the disc.
Provide an argument this time, instead of just saying
"3) Many theories have been proposed explaining this, they can be found on our wiki or simply by using the search function".
If such an article exists, please provide a link, proving that you have actually performed this search yourself.
-
Phew...
I've been a reader here for a while, but just recently decided to post a bit. I've been interested in finding some concrete ideas that support the notion of a flat earth, but I feel that there's really a dearth of actual evidence. As was just implied by Throwaway Account, it feels like supporters of FET (in this thread, jroa and Vauxhall specifically) often refer people back to the wiki, but I've been disappointed by the explanations I've found there. What I (and other like herewegoaround) would like are some clear arguments (or links to clear arguments) about the specific points brought up.
Relevant to this thread, the notion of the aether just seems a little fantastical...granted, it was a well accepted idea in classical physics through the 19th century, but isn't it true that the Michelson-Morley experiments pretty well indicated that such a medium does not exist?
Also, can any FET supporters provide an answer to the point posed by herewegoaround and re-posted by Throwaway Account above? (Point 3. originally posted by herewegoaround)
Also, this may be a little silly to get into, but jroa: you have an gif on your signature that says "Which model would you choose to represent the earth if you were in second grade: a.) a pancake or b.) an orange. The correct answer is a.)"
Doesn't this seem just a little presumptuous? How can you say what a hypothetical second grader would choose? And beyond that, what would it matter - should the intuitive powers of a second grader be our basis for determining ultimate truths? (I mean, children are wonderful, but...)
Finally (and forgive me for this post having multiple questions), I just want to ask: are most of you FET supporters just the internet's greatest trolls? Or do you genuinely believe the evidence suggests that the most parsimonious explanation for the observable character of the earth and its surroundings is that the planet is flat?
-
The Michelson-Morley experiments disproved luminiferous aether, which is similar but also completely different from our aether.
Nice David Bowie username. I'm a fan.
-
Gotcha, luminferfous aether, different from FET aether. But still, since the FET aether is a medium through which light is (according to you in this thread) is bent/distorted, wouldn't the same effects on the light from the stars and other planets be noticeable?
Vauxhall, from earlier, herewegoaround has as one of his points that the Verrazano-Narrows bridge is built to account for the curvature of the earth, to which you replied "no it isn't." Yet, here's a snippet from the wikipedia article on the bridge, which apparently comes from information from the US Dept. of Transportation (I did not follow up on this, but if the point needs confirming, I'd be happy to look into it.)
"Because of the height of the towers (693 ft or 211 m) and their distance apart (4,260 ft or 1,298 m), the curvature of the Earth's surface had to be taken into account when designing the bridge—the towers are 1 5⁄8 inches (41.275 mm) farther apart at their tops than at their bases; they are not parallel to each other." (Wikipedia)
Is the engineering on this bridge not proof of the earth's curvature? I think this is probably the major issue facing your belief system, that so much of what is done in modern science and engineering relies on the knowledge and truth that the earth is round. Navigation, engineering on the larger scale, satellites technology (do you content that GPS navigation systems are part of the conspiracy???)... the list, I assume, goes on for a while...
And then there's the glaring question: why would anybody cover this up? At least with the moon landing, it's obvious that if it were a hoax (and let me say emphatically that I rest assured that it was not), it would be distinctly embarrassing for the US gov. to admit that they'd not really won the space race, so the need for a government cover-up seems plausible...but science is doing amazing things these days, and it just strikes me as beyond reason that there would not be more vocal support for the FET theory?
So again, come on - this all has to be a joke, right? This all exists just to elicit responses from people like me, doesn't it? Can you address any of the issues I've brought up in a serious way?
Good catch by the way, I wasn't sure if I'd just come off as a skeptic of martian life! (Which, I suppose, I am)
-
1. The angular or apparent size of the sun in the sky does not change significantly. It changes slightly over the course of a year but not by any measurable amount over the course of a day. The only explanation for this is that the diameter of the Earth is negligible compared to the distance to the sun. If the sun is a distant object then all the light from it must be parallel. However, the angle of incoming sunlight is known to change gradually over the surface of the Earth: there are time zones. The only explanation for this is that the Earth is round.
2. There are circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Their centres of rotation are always either due North or due South respectively. The stars in between rise and set on the horizon much like the sun does. There is no flat Earth model which can account for this.
3. In the summer in Antarctica the sun is visible 24 hours a day. At the same time it is dark 24 hours a day in the Arctic. If the sun is following a giant circle above a flat disc it couldn't possibly be visible at all points around the edge of the disc while not being visible at the centre of the disc.
4. The sun sets. If the sun is following a giant circle above a flat disc it could never be seen to drop to an angle of elevation of less than 0 degrees. Also, its apparent size would change significantly over the course of a day and it would be seen to follow a radically different path in the sky.
5. Ships disappear over the horizon at the exact distance from shore as you would predict them to do if you were standing on a sphere with a radius of 4000 miles. Once they disappear the strongest telescope in the world won't bring them back into view. However, if you climb to higher ground the horizon line moves further away and you can see the ship again. The only explanation for these facts is that the world is round.
6. The curvature of the Earth had to be taken into account when building The Verrazano–Narrows Bridge.
7. The distance from the North Pole to the equator is about 6 200 miles. If the Earth is flat that would mean the equator is a circle with a circumference of 39 000 miles. The equator has a circumference of 25 000 miles.
8. According to the flat Earth model with The North Pole at the centre; the Tropic of Cancer should have a circumference of about 29 000 miles and the Tropic of Capricorn should have a circumference of about 49 000 miles. They both have a circumference of about 23 000 miles. Coupled with the fact that the equator has a circumference of 25 000 miles, this overwhelmingly suggests that the Earth is a spheroid.
1) Aetheric bending of light
2) The stars are caught in two separate aetheric whirlpools above the earth, each rotating differently and separately from each other. This causes the phenomenon known as "circumpolar stars".
3) Many theories have been proposed explaining this, they can be found on our wiki or simply by using the search function.
4) Sun sets have been discussed at length and have been explained several times. Please read the following:
http://wiki.tfes.org/Sunset
http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
5) This question just shows me that you have not browsed any of other already existing material like you claim you have. You are a liar, plain and simple. Please familiarize yourself with the basics of perspective (http://wiki.tfes.org/Basic_Perspective).
6) No it didn't.
7) Have you measured these distances yourself? Where are you getting this information? Please be specific.
8) Once again, where are you getting these numbers and measurements? Please be specific, because they are clearly false and/or assumptions based on a globular Earth model.
Before you post next, please peruse our wiki. It explains each of your points in great detail. It is disingenuous of you to come here, claim that you've read the wiki, and then proceed to post nonsense that clearly shows that you have not read the wiki on any of the subjects you've listed. If you have specific questions about the answers provided in the wiki pages, then ask them... but do not act like you understand FET when you clear don't.
What a load of unscientific, dishonest, incomprehensible bullshit. You're profoundly dishonest and totally deluded. Your aetheric whirlpools prove nothing. Idiot.
Let's discuss your 3rd false claim next. You claim that there is 24 hours of sunlight in Antarctica during the summer, yet, parts of Antarctica are not even located within the antarctic circle. In other words, parts of Antarctica never experience even one day of 24 hours of daylight or night, according to RET. Perhaps the discussion would go better for both of us if you do not make things up and just discuss facts? Making things up can be entertaining, but it is not appropriate for a serious debate.
-
Let's discuss your 3rd false claim next. You claim that there is 24 hours of sunlight in Antarctica during the summer, yet, parts of Antarctica are not even located within the antarctic circle. In other words, parts of Antarctica never experience even one day of 24 hours of daylight or night, according to RET.
What about the vast majority of Antarctica that is within the Antarctic circle and does experience 24 hours of daylight?
Perhaps the discussion would go better for both of us if you do not make things up and just discuss facts? Making things up can be entertaining, but it is not appropriate for a serious debate.
Perhaps the discussion would go better if you weren't unnecessarily pedantic.
-
to be fair herewegoround, you will not convince anyone when you throw insults at them. it doesn't matter how right or wrong a person is on their topic; if they show aggression in their words people will find ways to disagree. This is a psychological phenomenon. If you aren't here to convince people then i guess it doesn't matter but you should probably keep that in mind.
-
to be fair herewegoround, you will not convince anyone when you throw insults at them. it doesn't matter how right or wrong a person is on their topic; if they show aggression in their words people will find ways to disagree. This is a psychological phenomenon. If you aren't here to convince people then i guess it doesn't matter but you should probably keep that in mind.
If you read through this discussion you will see that I started off being perfectly reasonable. Jroa and Vauxhall became increasing childish and persistently insinuated things about me. I provided jroa with a quote from a professional astronomer, he referred to her twice as an astrologer and dismissed what she said. How does one deal with that level of dishonesty and obnoxious behaviour. Yet, everyone seems to think I've been the unreasonable one.
Perhaps I have spent too much time on the other flat Earth website forum. There isn't any moderation at all on the way people talk to each other. Flat Earth proponents gave themselves carte balanche to talk to me in anyway they wanted to me so I returned the favour.
It's facts that win arguments, not people.
-
Let's discuss your 3rd false claim next. You claim that there is 24 hours of sunlight in Antarctica during the summer, yet, parts of Antarctica are not even located within the antarctic circle. In other words, parts of Antarctica never experience even one day of 24 hours of daylight or night, according to RET.
What about the vast majority of Antarctica that is within the Antarctic circle and does experience 24 hours of daylight?
The claim was made that Antarctica receives 24 hours of sunlight for half the year. I simply pointed out that, according to RET, parts of Antarctica do not even get one day of 24 hour sunlight. Also, the vast majority of Antarctica, according to RET, receives between 1 day of 24 hour sunlight to just a couple of months of uninterrupted light1.
1 source: geometry
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fei0G-Umbxo
This video shows there is at least one location in Antarctica where the sun is visible 24 hours a day. If Antarctica is an ice rim then there shouldn't be anywhere in Antarctica where it is possible to see this. This is what can be seen in the summer in Antarctica, at the same it is winter in the Arctic where the sun isn't visible at all. So, according to flat Earth, the sun can visible at a point on the rim of a disc 24 hours a day but not visible at the centre of the disc.
-
Here's another video just in case you think the first one was posted on youtube by the NWO/masonic/CIA/Jesuit/Jewish conspiracy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nc6nhtaEt4
-
Either of those videos could have easily been produced on a sound stage. Did you notice all of the cuts in both videos?
-
Aether is no different than gravity. You cannot see gravity. You can't touch it. You can't even detect it. Yet, you still use gravity to explain your globular Earth theory. How is that any different than what I am doing? You believe things magically float in a void with nothing holding them up. That sounds pretty nonsensical to me. At least we have a force that holds up the heavens, it's called Universal Acceleration and it's most likely caused by the aether. We know Universal Acceleration exists because everything falls at the same rate. That is not a coincidence.
i don't think that is correct. with gravity we observe a phenomenon (stuff falls down) and we describe this phenomenon with the law of gravity. Correct me if i'm wrong on this point, but aether was thought up to explain a phenomenon that hasn't been proved to happen; Aether explains how the light can bend and cause the sun not to change size, but without getting up high enough to see the sun change size without the interference of the aether we can't know for sure that the light is actually bending. Has this been done? To be more clear, i have a reason to believe gravity exists, i do not have a reason to believe aether exists. Would you please give me one?
The Cavendish experiment was designed to measure the gravitational pull of two balls and showed that even small objects have gravity. Today we can locate oil in the ground by using a device that measures gravity(places with oil tend to be more dense); Not many people realize that gravity actually differs very slightly across the surface of the earth; the difference is very small but it's measurable. We can test this using a device called a gravimeter(which is basically a weighted ball suspended by a spring). This was an older and less accurate method than using sound waves but it worked well enough to profit from.
It's inaccurate to say that RE proponents believe things float in the void without things to hold them up. It is as ridiculous to me as it is to you. Gravity is constantly acting in space and if you were to be in space you would fall toward the sun. However, while you fall toward the sun you would feel weightless. the same feeling can be replicated in an airplane as it shoots toward the ground. or just jump down some stairs and you will feel weightless for half a second. Things don't float, they fall.
The hardest thing about digging up research performed in this manner is that gravity and a round earth is practically uncontroversial. No ones doing experiments because they already know the answer.
-
Either of those videos could have easily been produced on a sound stage. Did you notice all of the cuts in both videos?
So, let me see if I have got this straight. You are suggesting that these videos were produced by a conspiracy for the sole purpose of promoting the idea that the Earth is round. And people wonder why I ended up calling you names. Are you really a moderator on this forum? You behave more like a troll.
You admitted in an earlier post that there are places in Antarctica where the sun is visible 24 hours a day.
-
Either of those videos could have easily been produced on a sound stage. Did you notice all of the cuts in both videos?
So, let me see if I have got this straight. You are suggesting that these videos were produced by a conspiracy for the sole purpose of promoting the idea that the Earth is round. And people wonder why I ended up calling you names. Are you really a moderator on this forum? You behave more like a troll.
You admitted in an earlier post that there are places in Antarctica where the sun is visible 24 hours a day.
i could have told you that was going to happen. in all honesty they could have been faked. although i'm not sure how to explain the specific path that the earth takes in each clip except by RE theory. again you are using condescending phrases and will not convince anyone like that.
-
wait wait... if the aether is propelling the earth upwards at 9.8 m/s why is it not acting on us and the objects on top of the earth?
-
Either of those videos could have easily been produced on a sound stage. Did you notice all of the cuts in both videos?
So, let me see if I have got this straight. You are suggesting that these videos were produced by a conspiracy for the sole purpose of promoting the idea that the Earth is round. And people wonder why I ended up calling you names. Are you really a moderator on this forum? You behave more like a troll.
You admitted in an earlier post that there are places in Antarctica where the sun is visible 24 hours a day.
i could have told you that was going to happen. in all honesty they could have been faked. although i'm not sure how to explain the specific path that the earth takes in each clip except by RE theory. again you are using condescending phrases and will not convince anyone like that.
Anything in theory could be faked. My point is, why would they be faked? I take it you are new to dealing with flat Earth proponents. I started out being reasonable with them. After you get accused of being a paid shill, told you are indoctrinated, told you are a sheeple and told you can't think for yourself for the 100th time you lose patience. I have dealt with jroa several times on the other forum. The only argument he has ever put forward for the Earth being flat is, "have you looked out your window".
-
wait wait... if the aether is propelling the earth upwards at 9.8 m/s why is it not acting on us and the objects on top of the earth?
Exactly. Also, the acceleration due to gravity varies over the face of the Earth. If the Earth was an accelerating disc it would be exactly the same everywhere. Assuming all the normal laws of geometry, physics and logic apply.
-
Anything in theory could be faked. My point is, why would they be faked? I take it you are new to dealing with flat Earth proponents. I started out being reasonable with them. After you get accused of being a paid shill, told you are indoctrinated, told you are a sheeple and told you can't think for yourself for the 100th time you lose patience. I have dealt with jroa several times on the other forum. The only argument he has ever put forward for the Earth being flat is, "have you looked out your window".
caught me, yes i am. however, i intend to stay polite out of principle. insults don't bother me. my question to you is: why are you still doing this if it causes you so much stress?
-
wait wait... if the aether is propelling the earth upwards at 9.8 m/s why is it not acting on us and the objects on top of the earth?
It is 9.8 m/s/s, which is an acceleration. Also, it is acting on you. The Earth is being pushed, and the Earth pushes against your feet, so you are also being accelerated upwards.
-
Anything in theory could be faked. My point is, why would they be faked? I take it you are new to dealing with flat Earth proponents. I started out being reasonable with them. After you get accused of being a paid shill, told you are indoctrinated, told you are a sheeple and told you can't think for yourself for the 100th time you lose patience. I have dealt with jroa several times on the other forum. The only argument he has ever put forward for the Earth being flat is, "have you looked out your window".
caught me, yes i am. however, i intend to stay polite out of principle. insults don't bother me. my question to you is: why are you still doing this if it causes you so much stress?
I stopped going to the other forum because it descended into a complete farce. There were people there who claimed the site had been infiltrated by trolls who were deliberately making absurd comments in order to discredit FET and that this was a more serious forum. To be honest, compared to the other forum, this is like a bastion of reason and sanity.
I don't know why I keep doing it. That's a very good question. I don't think I will keep posting here for very long. I put forward the reasons why we should believe the Earth is round.
-
wait wait... if the aether is propelling the earth upwards at 9.8 m/s why is it not acting on us and the objects on top of the earth?
It is 9.8 m/s/s, which is an acceleration. Also, it is acting on you. The Earth is being pushed, and the Earth pushes against your feet, so you are also being accelerated upwards.
UA is postulated to explain why things fall to the ground and why we have weight. If the aether is acting on us as well as the Earth then we should feel weightless.
-
wait wait... if the aether is propelling the earth upwards at 9.8 m/s why is it not acting on us and the objects on top of the earth?
It is 9.8 m/s/s, which is an acceleration. Also, it is acting on you. The Earth is being pushed, and the Earth pushes against your feet, so you are also being accelerated upwards.
Let me ask you a couple of questions. They are simple questions which you should be able to answer.
1. How far do you believe the equator is from the North Pole?
2. What do you believe the circumference of the Equator to be?
-
1. I have never measured the distance. Have you?
2. See 1.
-
1. I have never measured the distance. Have you?
2. See 1.
I didn't ask you if you had measured them. If you have a flat Earth model surely you should have some idea of what you think these distances are. I am asking what you believe them to be.
-
So, are you asking me to guess, then? Guessing might be OK in your round Earth model, but in FET, we like to use facts instead of just guesses.
-
So, are you asking me to guess, then? Guessing might be OK in your round Earth model, but in FET, we like to use facts instead of just guesses.
If you can't specifying exactly what you are arguing for how can I argue against it?
-
You sound like you are fishing for something to debate that you could actually defend. While I applaud your willingness to find something in RET that is defendable, you will have to pick something that I or someone else actually stated in order to work up your rebuttal.
-
You sound like you are fishing for something to debate that you could actually defend. While I applaud your willingness to find something in RET that is defendable, you will have to pick something that I or someone else actually stated in order to work up your rebuttal.
I will state it again, please read this very carefully and think about what I am saying.
If you can't specify exactly what it is that you are arguing for, how can I argue against it?
Do you understand this very elementary point? If you can't even specify a very basic aspect of your model, like what the distance is between the North Pole and the equator, then I have nothing to argue against and this conversation is redundant.
I can specify any aspect at all of the round Earth model I am arguing the case for.
-
You sound like you are fishing for something to debate that you could actually defend. While I applaud your willingness to find something in RET that is defendable, you will have to pick something that I or someone else actually stated in order to work up your rebuttal.
There is no aspect of the round Earth model that isn't defendable. There isn't even a well defined flat Earth model that you all agree on. I can accept that some of you have different models but I have never spoken to a flat Earth proponent who can specify precisely what their model is.
-
wait wait... if the aether is propelling the earth upwards at 9.8 m/s why is it not acting on us and the objects on top of the earth?
It is 9.8 m/s/s, which is an acceleration. Also, it is acting on you. The Earth is being pushed, and the Earth pushes against your feet, so you are also being accelerated upwards.
I think you misinterpreted what i was asking. I was trying to ask if the aether was acting directly on us. I think I managed to get what you meant anyway. so you mean to say The aether is not acting on us; it is acting only on the earth, and the earth is blocking the aether so that we don't experience weightlessness?
-
I think you misinterpreted what i was asking. I was trying to ask if the aether was acting directly on us. I think I managed to get what you meant anyway. so you mean to say The aether is not acting on us; it is acting only on the earth, and the earth is blocking the aether so that we don't experience weightlessness?
Imagine you're in a river, shielding yourself from the current with a big wooden plank. The current acts on the plank, which in turn acts on you.
Similarly here, the aetheric wind doesn't act on you directly because the Earth is in the way.
-
You sound like you are fishing for something to debate that you could actually defend. While I applaud your willingness to find something in RET that is defendable, you will have to pick something that I or someone else actually stated in order to work up your rebuttal.
There is no aspect of the round Earth model that isn't defendable. There isn't even a well defined flat Earth model that you all agree on. I can accept that some of you have different models but I have never spoken to a flat Earth proponent who can specify precisely what their model is.
How many flat Earthers have you spoken to?
-
wait wait... if the aether is propelling the earth upwards at 9.8 m/s why is it not acting on us and the objects on top of the earth?
It is 9.8 m/s/s, which is an acceleration. Also, it is acting on you. The Earth is being pushed, and the Earth pushes against your feet, so you are also being accelerated upwards.
I think you misinterpreted what i was asking. I was trying to ask if the aether was acting directly on us. I think I managed to get what you meant anyway. so you mean to say The aether is not acting on us; it is acting only on the earth, and the earth is blocking the aether so that we don't experience weightlessness?
I believe that the Earth blocks most, but not all, of this force from reaching us. A small amount permeates through the Earth and does act on us, but in a very subtle and almost imperceptible way. This is why things have a slightly different amount of weight at different locations across the plane.
-
The distance from the North Pole to the equator is 6200 miles to 2 s.f.
The circumference of the equator is 25 000 miles to 2 s.f
I didn't get these figures from the CIA website. They are facts that are widely accepted and that are assumed to be true by thousands of people who use the round Earth model on a daily basis in their working lives: astronomers, cartographers, meteorologists, geologists, sailors, navigators, air traffic controllers, the military, air line pilots.
If the Earth is flat and the distance from the North pole to the equator is 6 200 miles that would give the equator a circumference of 39 000 miles.
If the Earth is flat and the circumference of the equator is 25 000 miles that would give make the distance from the North pole to the equator 4000 miles.
The flat Earth model doesn't fit at all, it's not even just a little bit out.
Now, if these figures are wrong how is it that all these professional people using the round Earth model don't notice that it is catastrophically inaccurate?
-
I think you misinterpreted what i was asking. I was trying to ask if the aether was acting directly on us. I think I managed to get what you meant anyway. so you mean to say The aether is not acting on us; it is acting only on the earth, and the earth is blocking the aether so that we don't experience weightlessness?
Imagine you're in a river, shielding yourself from the current with a big wooden plank. The current acts on the plank, which in turn acts on you.
Similarly here, the aetheric wind doesn't act on you directly because the Earth is in the way.
How does the aether manage to make some parts of the disc accelerate slightly differently form other parts of the disc?
-
You sound like you are fishing for something to debate that you could actually defend. While I applaud your willingness to find something in RET that is defendable, you will have to pick something that I or someone else actually stated in order to work up your rebuttal.
There is no aspect of the round Earth model that isn't defendable. There isn't even a well defined flat Earth model that you all agree on. I can accept that some of you have different models but I have never spoken to a flat Earth proponent who can specify precisely what their model is.
How many flat Earthers have you spoken to?
Not that it's in any way relevant to the discussion, I couldn't put an exact figure to it. Between the flat Earth forums and youtube I would say somewhere between 10 and 20.
You always evade issues by asking pedantic questions that have no bearing on the central points.
The issue in hand at this precise moment is what is your model for the flat Earth?
-
wait wait... if the aether is propelling the earth upwards at 9.8 m/s why is it not acting on us and the objects on top of the earth?
It is 9.8 m/s/s, which is an acceleration. Also, it is acting on you. The Earth is being pushed, and the Earth pushes against your feet, so you are also being accelerated upwards.
I think you misinterpreted what i was asking. I was trying to ask if the aether was acting directly on us. I think I managed to get what you meant anyway. so you mean to say The aether is not acting on us; it is acting only on the earth, and the earth is blocking the aether so that we don't experience weightlessness?
I believe that the Earth blocks most, but not all, of this force from reaching us. A small amount permeates through the Earth and does act on us, but in a very subtle and almost imperceptible way. This is why things have a slightly different amount of weight at different locations across the plane.
Can you provide a link to a physics journal in which a physicist proposes the aether and gives it a precise Mathematical definition?
-
So, are you asking me to guess, then? Guessing might be OK in your round Earth model, but in FET, we like to use facts instead of just guesses.
If you can't specify precisely what your flat Earth model is then this conversation is redundant.
-
So, are you asking me to guess, then? Guessing might be OK in your round Earth model, but in FET, we like to use facts instead of just guesses.
If you can't specify precisely what your flat Earth model is then this conversation is redundant.
No, it is redundant when you quote me and respond to my quote, I respond back, and then hours later, you quote me and respond as if you had not already responded to the quote to begin with. Do you understand how redundancy works?
-
How many flat Earthers have you spoken to?
you people are the first, but i feel that is somewhat irrelevent.
I think you misinterpreted what i was asking. I was trying to ask if the aether was acting directly on us. I think I managed to get what you meant anyway. so you mean to say The aether is not acting on us; it is acting only on the earth, and the earth is blocking the aether so that we don't experience weightlessness?
Imagine you're in a river, shielding yourself from the current with a big wooden plank. The current acts on the plank, which in turn acts on you.
Similarly here, the aetheric wind doesn't act on you directly because the Earth is in the way.
Thanks that makes sense.
I believe that the Earth blocks most, but not all, of this force from reaching us. A small amount permeates through the Earth and does act on us, but in a very subtle and almost imperceptible way. This is why things have a slightly different amount of weight at different locations across the plane.
That also makes sense. but that still doesn't explain the atraction between small objects observed in cavendish's experiment, and i've still not heard the original reason that suggests that aether exists.
-
sorry if i don't respond right away. i'm sneaking posts in between classes. =3
-
How many flat Earthers have you spoken to?
you people are the first, but i feel that is somewhat irrelevent.
I think that question was directed at herewegoround who said "I have never spoken to a flat Earth proponent who can specify precisely what their model is." That statement could technically be correct if he simply spoke to no FE'ers at all.
That also makes sense. but that still doesn't explain the atraction between small objects observed in cavendish's experiment, and i've still not heard the original reason that suggests that aether exists.
Personally, I propose that gravitation exists between some mass, but not all mass. An old favourite of mine was to challenge RE'ers to demonstrate that bananas attract each other. Eventually, I stopped asking, since I received nothing but insults back.
-
So, are you asking me to guess, then? Guessing might be OK in your round Earth model, but in FET, we like to use facts instead of just guesses.
If you can't specify precisely what your flat Earth model is then this conversation is redundant.
No, it is redundant when you quote me and respond to my quote, I respond back, and then hours later, you quote me and respond as if you had not already responded to the quote to begin with. Do you understand how redundancy works?
Instead of "redundant", he probably meant "moot" or, more likely, "futile".
-
Jrao.
Give me a full description of the flat Earth model you are arguing for. Stop derailing the discussion with irrelevant and illogical points. This is your classic tactic. You are notorious for it on the other flat Earth forums.
-
I think you misinterpreted what i was asking. I was trying to ask if the aether was acting directly on us. I think I managed to get what you meant anyway. so you mean to say The aether is not acting on us; it is acting only on the earth, and the earth is blocking the aether so that we don't experience weightlessness?
Imagine you're in a river, shielding yourself from the current with a big wooden plank. The current acts on the plank, which in turn acts on you.
Similarly here, the aetheric wind doesn't act on you directly because the Earth is in the way.
How does the aether manage to make some parts of the disc accelerate slightly differently form other parts of the disc?
It doesn't. However, the shadow of the Aetheric whirlpool exerts a small amount of pull, which causes the minor changes in gravitation you're referring to.
Jrao.
Give me a full description of the flat Earth model you are arguing for. Stop derailing the discussion with irrelevant and illogical points. This is your classic tactic. You are notorious for it on the other flat Earth forums.
That's a big demand to make of someone when you can't even spell their name properly. Why is Jroa under any obligation to comply with your orders.
-
I think you misinterpreted what i was asking. I was trying to ask if the aether was acting directly on us. I think I managed to get what you meant anyway. so you mean to say The aether is not acting on us; it is acting only on the earth, and the earth is blocking the aether so that we don't experience weightlessness?
Imagine you're in a river, shielding yourself from the current with a big wooden plank. The current acts on the plank, which in turn acts on you.
Similarly here, the aetheric wind doesn't act on you directly because the Earth is in the way.
How does the aether manage to make some parts of the disc accelerate slightly differently form other parts of the disc?
It doesn't. However, the shadow of the Aetheric whirlpool exerts a small amount of pull, which causes the minor changes in gravitation you're referring to.
This is what you call logical gymnastics. Pretty much every flat Earth argument amounts to invoking a mysterious process, to which you can give any property you want, in order to cover up the fact that all the evidence indicates overwhelmingly that the Earth is round.
Provide a link to a physics journal where a physicist has published an article giving a mathematical description of the properties of the aether.
-
That's a big demand to make of someone when you can't even spell their name properly. Why is Jroa under any obligation to comply with your orders.
How is that a big demand to make of someone who spends a lot of time on a flat Earth forum and who seems utterly committed to the notion? I spelt his name wrong, apologies.
I am more than happy to specify exactly what I am arguing for.
-
How many flat Earthers have you spoken to?
you people are the first, but i feel that is somewhat irrelevent.
I think that question was directed at herewegoround who said "I have never spoken to a flat Earth proponent who can specify precisely what their model is." That statement could technically be correct if he simply spoke to no FE'ers at all.
That also makes sense. but that still doesn't explain the atraction between small objects observed in cavendish's experiment, and i've still not heard the original reason that suggests that aether exists.
Personally, I propose that gravitation exists between some mass, but not all mass. An old favourite of mine was to challenge RE'ers to demonstrate that bananas attract each other. Eventually, I stopped asking, since I received nothing but insults back.
oh snap you right! i must have been reading too quickly due to posting during classes. for the sake of my logic i should probably wait until i get home to do reading. sorry jroa.
on your point about the bananas i suspect the experiment could be replicated to verify it, however the organic nature of a banana could pose troublesome as decaying banana's release heat which could interfere with the experiment. It would be much more effective to perform the experiment on the different elements that make up the banana. It's extremely likely that no one has ever considering doing such a thing, so i imagine you or another FEr would have to do it yourself. the experiment itself doesn't seem too complicated; it's getting the materials and making sure that the device is isolated that would be the hardest parts.
It's also worth noting that if even some of the earth has gravity, than there would be an obvious effect felt on a flat earth as you near the side of the disk. if it wouldn't be obvious we could test this by comparing how a ball hangs from a string at different distances from the arctic.
although i'm still curious as to why aether was proposed in the first place. since i can't just assume aether exists (Occam's Razor); i'll be left to the theory of gravity, which explains things rather well and has past experiments that back the theory up, if i can't find a reason to suggest the existence of aether.
-
How many flat Earthers have you spoken to?
you people are the first, but i feel that is somewhat irrelevent.
I think you misinterpreted what i was asking. I was trying to ask if the aether was acting directly on us. I think I managed to get what you meant anyway. so you mean to say The aether is not acting on us; it is acting only on the earth, and the earth is blocking the aether so that we don't experience weightlessness?
Imagine you're in a river, shielding yourself from the current with a big wooden plank. The current acts on the plank, which in turn acts on you.
Similarly here, the aetheric wind doesn't act on you directly because the Earth is in the way.
Thanks that makes sense.
I believe that the Earth blocks most, but not all, of this force from reaching us. A small amount permeates through the Earth and does act on us, but in a very subtle and almost imperceptible way. This is why things have a slightly different amount of weight at different locations across the plane.
That also makes sense. but that still doesn't explain the atraction between small objects observed in cavendish's experiment, and i've still not heard the original reason that suggests that aether exists.
Wulf's point above is valid - what is the original evidence for the aether / aetheric wind? It seems to be, as herewegoround is suggesting in his most recent post, that FE folks start from the presumption that the earth is flat (because hey, look our your window, it's pretty flat...), and then need to invent new natural processes for which we have no evidence to explain the original presumption....whereas, given the evidence from observations as we have them (and again, herewegoround laid them out a number of them pretty clearly at the beginning of this thread), everything seems to suggests that the earth is round.
Not to paint with a broad brush, but is it possible FE folks that maybe you are all just so committed to being contrarian - which, granted, is an important role in a free thinking society - that you're not really looking at the very clear and obvious truth? I mean, I just cannot see any way that you guys truly believe this stuff, so I keep coming back to the idea that this whole entire website must just be an attempt to mess with people...
Also, I'd love to hear a response to the Verrazzano bridge point!
-
Isn't it obvious what a catastrophe the flat Earth idea is. For a start there isn't even a standard flat Earth model, so when you talk to people you have no idea what they are arguing for. Most people when pressed on exactly what they do believe won't or can't specify. There is no flat Earth model that fits all the observations which sticks to all the normal laws of geometry, optics and physics. The known distances on the surface of the Earth like the circumference of the equator and the distance from the North Pole to the equator don't match. There is no way there can be circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres assuming normal geometry. The path the sun follows in the sky and its constant apparent size don't fit. The farce that ships disappearing over the horizon evokes is epic: I've heard everything from bending light to swelling water.
When you bring up these points there are two main tactics: deny basic facts or invoke mysterious pseudo-scientific processes which can be invested with any properties you want.
If the idea of a flat Earth was viable there would be a single standard model which could fit all the known geometry of the Earth and the motions of heavenly bodies. It would be a model that made sense and didn't require all sots of peculiar ideas. The total disarray amongst flat Earth proponents as to exactly what you do believe and how exactly the facts could fit a flat Earth should be ringing warning bells for you that perhaps you haven't got it right.
-
although i'm still curious as to why aether was proposed in the first place. since i can't just assume aether exists (Occam's Razor); i'll be left to the theory of gravity, which explains things rather well and has past experiments that back the theory up, if i can't find a reason to suggest the existence of aether.
As far as I know the aether was proposed by a guy on the other flat Earth forum, I won't mention his name. He's the first person I heard talking about it anyway. He claims that it talks to him and tells him how it creates whirlpools far above the Earth. Unless he is trolling I think he is actually schizophrenic.
-
I know it might be tiresome dealing with people who ask the same questions over and over, especially when they tend to be hostile, but i am not trying to antagonistic. The wiki doesn't say anything about why the aether proposal was proposed in the first place.
-
I know it might be tiresome dealing with people who ask the same questions over and over, especially when they tend to be hostile, but i am not trying to antagonistic. The wiki doesn't say anything about why the aether proposal was proposed in the first place.
The Earth is moving upward at 1g (in RET terms). What is pushing the Earth upward? Aether.
Earlier you said that "we observe phenomenon and that's how we know gravity is there", well... that's how the theory of aether came about as well. Besides admitting that there is no actual evidence for gravity, do you see the similarities? Your RET model makes just as many assumptions, actually more, than we do. This is why FET passes the Occam's razor test and RET does not.
-
I know it might be tiresome dealing with people who ask the same questions over and over, especially when they tend to be hostile, but i am not trying to antagonistic. The wiki doesn't say anything about why the aether proposal was proposed in the first place.
The Earth is moving upward at 1g (in RET terms). What is pushing the Earth upward? Aether.
Earlier you said that "we observe phenomenon and that's how we know gravity is there", well... that's how the theory of aether came about as well. Besides admitting that there is no actual evidence for gravity, do you see the similarities? Your RET model makes just as many assumptions, actually more, than we do. This is why FET passes the Occam's razor test and RET does not.
As I have already stated there is a precise mathematical and simple law of gravitation which makes very specific and testable predictions. The law is that two objects will attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The evidence for this is massive; both direct and indirect evidence. The Cavendish experiments showed that there is an attraction between objects in the exact way as would be predicted. The motion of the the planets is described to a high degree of accuracy using the law of gravitation.
There is nothing even comparable to this in aether "theory". There are no equations, no way of making exact predictions, no way of testing it and no obvious way to falsify it. It's a qualitative hand waving idea that can do anything flat Earthers want it to do. As I have said before, it's function is to twist evidence for the Earth being round into evidence for the Earth being flat.
-
Gravity isn't a round Earth theory. At the time Newton developed it, contrary to what many flat Earthers would have you believe, it was widely accepted that the Earth was round. Look into the history of it. It has nothing to do with people believing the Earth is round or for explaining why the Earth is round. As it turned it, gravity does also explain very nicely why heavenly bodies form into spheres. The main arguments for the Earth being round are mostly geometric and optical. Flat Earth "theory" is a complete mess, as I have said there isn't even a standard model that we can debate. The partial models and ad hoc ideas that are floating about explain partially some observations. They often require completely unsubstantiated concepts that nobody can ever define properly or give any evidence for.
-
I know it might be tiresome dealing with people who ask the same questions over and over, especially when they tend to be hostile, but i am not trying to antagonistic. The wiki doesn't say anything about why the aether proposal was proposed in the first place.
The Earth is moving upward at 1g (in RET terms). What is pushing the Earth upward? Aether.
Earlier you said that "we observe phenomenon and that's how we know gravity is there", well... that's how the theory of aether came about as well. Besides admitting that there is no actual evidence for gravity, do you see the similarities? Your RET model makes just as many assumptions, actually more, than we do. This is why FET passes the Occam's razor test and RET does not.
I believe i mentioned Cavendish's experiment. my issue is that i cannot observe the earth flying upward at 1g. i can observe the effect of gravity both on the earth and on small objects. without an observation to back the aether theory up we have to assume that it exists, and i don't think the earth flying upwards at 1 g can qualify without some space exploration.
-
As I have already stated there is a precise mathematical and simple law of gravitation which makes very specific and testable predictions.
Yes, and because we've tested those predictions, we know that this theory is false. That's high school knowledge which doesn't require any contact with FET.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
-
As I have already stated there is a precise mathematical and simple law of gravitation which makes very specific and testable predictions.
Yes, and because we've tested those predictions, we know that this theory is false. That's high school knowledge which doesn't require any contact with FET.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
That's science, it's not evidence of a conspiracy. Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is limited. I already said that. For most everyday purposes though it is still highly accurate. It predicts to a very high degree of accuracy the motions of the planets apart from the precession of mercury. It took General Relativity to account for that. That's how science works, every increasing degrees of accuracy. There isn't even a mathematical model for the aether that can be tested.
-
As I have already stated there is a precise mathematical and simple law of gravitation which makes very specific and testable predictions.
Yes, and because we've tested those predictions, we know that this theory is false. That's high school knowledge which doesn't require any contact with FET.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
if you've done tests could you share the results? I'm actually excited to hear about these anomalies because it means there is more to learn. however i don't believe some anomalies can discount a relationship that has been observed and proven. The new model would have to describe both the anomalies and the relationship already observed.
-
As I have already stated there is a precise mathematical and simple law of gravitation which makes very specific and testable predictions.
Yes, and because we've tested those predictions, we know that this theory is false. That's high school knowledge which doesn't require any contact with FET.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
How is that evidence that there is no gravity? Perhaps it is evidence of an improper formulation?
-
Newton never existed. That's pretty relevant to this discussion, because he supposedly created the theory of gravity. Even science needs a messiah.
Do you have any concrete evidence that Newton was a real person or are you simply dismissing this idea because you have no way of disproving it?
i'm dismissing it because i think it is irrelevant. as long as predictions are made and turn out correctly it doesn't matter who is making them. newton is admired for his contributions, but the information speaks for itself. The only function i can see for a role model is motivation and inspiration. I believe newton had a rival, and both of them claimed the other had stolen their work. in my own opinion, people back then tended to be very unethical and selfish in general, so i can't really say he's much of a role model.
pizaaplanet had already provided you with a lengthy list of gravitational anomalies that do not jive with the predicted values. I'd say that's pretty good evidence that your predictions are inaccurate and therefore your model is wrong.
This is when dark matter is introduced, to account for these discrepancies. But dark matter has absolutely no evidence supporting it, and is pretty much a god particle (magic) at this point. How is that any different from aether?
It's clear you weren't aware of these anomalies. I suggest doing some research on your own model before attempting to prove its accuracy.
-
That's science, it's not evidence of a conspiracy.
I didn't say it's evidence of a conspiracy. I said it's wrong and you should stop pretending it isn't.
-
pizaaplanet had already provided you with a lengthy list of gravitational anomalies that do not jive with the predicted values. I'd say that's pretty good evidence that your predictions are inaccurate and therefore your model is wrong.
This is when dark matter is introduced, to account for these discrepancies. But dark matter has absolutely no evidence supporting it, and is pretty much a god particle (magic) at this point. How is that any different from aether?
It's clear you weren't aware of these anomalies. I suggest doing some research on your own model before attempting to prove its accuracy.
I countered that arguement already. providing anomalous behavior is great, it means something is unaccounted for. However, it doesn't disprove relationships that are observed. the relationships i have mentioned before hasn't been explained by aether yet. the new model will have to account for both the anomalous behavior and the observations.
besides, i'm not asking for you to disprove gravity, although i guess it's ok, i'm asking for the initial observation that led to the conclusion that aether exists.
-
besides, i'm not asking for you to disprove gravity ...
Why would you? It disproves itself.
-
besides, i'm not asking for you to disprove gravity ...
Why would you? It disproves itself.
would you please explain?
could you please provide me the original observation that led to the conclusion that aether exists? i'm starting to think you are dodging this on purpose... i've asked a lot of times.
-
Aether is the proposed substance that causes the observable phenomenon known as universal acceleration.
-
That's science, it's not evidence of a conspiracy.
I didn't say it's evidence of a conspiracy. I said it's wrong and you should stop pretending it isn't.
You provided a link to some anomalies. Do you know what an anomaly is? It means a result that doesn't fit in with all the other results. They aren't evidence that the whole thing is wrong. I have said clearly at least twice that Newton's Law of Gravity isn't the whole story. It is still a very useful theory that fits with an incredible amount of evidence. The aether doesn't have anomalies because to have anomalies it must have a huge amount of supporting evidence that is accurately predicted by the theory. For a theory to get to the point of having anomalies it must have been successful in the first place.
-
You provided a link to some anomalies. Do you know what an anomaly is?
Yes.
I have said clearly at least twice that Newton's Law of Gravity isn't the whole story.
Yes, and I'm calling you out on it.
For a theory to get to the point of having anomalies it must have been successful in the first place.
No. Do you know what an anomaly (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anomaly) is?
-
You provided a link to some anomalies. Do you know what an anomaly is?
Yes.
I have said clearly at least twice that Newton's Law of Gravity isn't the whole story.
Yes, and I'm calling you out on it.
For a theory to get to the point of having anomalies it must have been successful in the first place.
No. Do you know what an anomaly (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anomaly) is?
You're calling me out on it? What does that mean?
An anomaly is a result that doesn't fit. For there to be anomaly there must be lots of results that do fit.
Seriosuly, where is this going? What point are you trying to make? The universal law of gravitation was an astoundingly successful theory. It was the first ever proper mathematical theory that could be used to make accurate predictions. For two hundred years the only known fact that didn't fit was the precision of mercury.
What are you trying to say? This isn't going anywhere.
I shall state is very clearly once more.
Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation made some very accurate predictions. Specifically about the motions of the planets and also terrestrial motion such as projectiles but it's not the whole story.
Can we move on from this irrelevant point.
The aether isn't even a theory.
-
Aether is the proposed substance that causes the observable phenomenon known as universal acceleration.
thank you. i initially rejected this because i did not think to ask: how did people observe universal acceleration? how do we know that universal acceleration is the cause things falling and not gravity? How do we know that sunsets are the result of refraction and not the result of a round earth? it's paradoxical to me: the proof that aether exists is the refraction of light and the upwards acceleration of the earth. the proof that light refracts causing the sun to stay a consistent shape throughout the day and that the earth is accelerating upwards is.. what? the aether? i can only assume I'm misunderstanding what you are saying or you are not providing all the information because that logic doesn't sound right.
-
Falling is an observable phenomenon. The most simple explanation is that the Earth is moving upward which causes us to fall at the same rate universally. This explanation is simpler and conforms with what we can observe. Making up a fake force (gravity) is complicated and in need of evidence, which is why it does not pass the Occam's razor test and is therefore the less likely possibility.
-
Falling is an observable phenomenon. The most simple explanation is that the Earth is moving upward which causes us to fall at the same rate universally. This explanation is simpler and conforms with what we can observe. Making up a fake force (gravity) is complicated and in need of evidence, which is why it does not pass the Occam's razor test and is therefore the less likely possibility.
but you understand the problem right? in my shoes i can say this: Falling is an observable phenomenon. The most simple explanation is that the gravity is acting on us which causes us to fall at the same rate universally. This explanation is simpler and conforms with what we can observe. Making up a fake force (Aether) is complicated and in need of evidence, which is why it does not pass the Occam's razor test and is therefore the less likely possibility.
There needs to be a way to tell which one is actually the force acting on us. i've offered my evidence that shows small objects exhibit the property of gravity. so far i've yet to hear about any results and methodology from experiments performed by this society. Without this information, i've only my observational proof that gravity exists.
-
How is gravity a simple explanation?
If you fall off a chair, what's the simplest explanation? A mysterious particle that sucks you to the Earth that is unobservable, or that the Earth is actually meeting you as you fall? Which one requires less made up stuff?
-
How is gravity a simple explanation?
If you fall off a chair, what's the simplest explanation? A mysterious particle that sucks you to the Earth that is unobservable, or that the Earth is actually meeting you as you fall? Which one requires less made up stuff?
If you fall of a chair, what's the simplest explanation? a mysterious medium that pushes the earth toward you? or a force that is pulling you down? Which requires more made up stuff?
This debate cannot be concluded with statements of opinion. opinion is something we disagree on fundamentally. it probably isn't a good idea to expect people to see the world the way you do... pun intended.
the aether requires us to assume that the way we see the sun is a mirage, this is an assumption. it also assumes that the earth is accelerating upwards. there is also the assumption that the reason we don't see the bottom parts of things as we cross the horizon is because of mirage effects or the bulging of the ocean, or something that else that causes what we see to not truly be as we see it. I have yet to see experimental evidence that suggests these observations are not what we seem to observe.
if you are going to attempt to persuade me you have to do it with experimental evidence.
-
Aether is the same as dark matter. Why don't you have an issue with that? Seems like you're being selective about what you criticize.
-
Aether is the same as dark matter. Why don't you have an issue with that? Seems like you're being selective about what you criticize.
i do have a problem with dark matter. dark matter is a proposed explanation for something not understood. there are current theories that are being tossed around that are alternative to dark matter. i'm even cautious to call dark matter a theory rather than a hypothesis. but dark matter is only relevant at extremely large scales, something that the FE theory disagrees on entirely(correct me if i'm wrong).
the thing is, the current FE model leaves some things unexplained as well. However, i'd much rather take things one step at a time. I already know about the RE model; I want to know about the FE model. i'm asking questions in a logical manner. do you think i should make a separate thread for that?
i'll have to continue this tomorrow.
-
Aether is the same as dark matter.
No, it isn't. Dark matter is believed to have its own gravitational influence (mass warps space-time). If aether is accelerating the FE, then it would be closer to dark energy (which is believed to be cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe).
-
How is gravity a simple explanation?
If you fall off a chair, what's the simplest explanation? A mysterious particle that sucks you to the Earth that is unobservable, or that the Earth is actually meeting you as you fall? Which one requires less made up stuff?
The graviton is not yet part of either QM or GR why are you including it?
-
Aether is the same as dark matter. Why don't you have an issue with that? Seems like you're being selective about what you criticize.
There is data giving 3 sigma confidence in the observation of WIMPs. Does the Aether have any sort of data supporting it?
-
How is gravity a simple explanation?
If you fall off a chair, what's the simplest explanation? A mysterious particle that sucks you to the Earth that is unobservable, or that the Earth is actually meeting you as you fall? Which one requires less made up stuff?
The graviton is not yet part of either QM or GR why are you including it?
the graviton is part of the standard model. it is something the model predicts but has yet to be observed. other particles that were predicted and then observed include the higgs boson. I could ask why do you include aether without any observational evidence to support it. it relies on what we see to be mirage effects, yet how do we know these observations are the result of mirage effects?
-
How is gravity a simple explanation?
If you fall off a chair, what's the simplest explanation? A mysterious particle that sucks you to the Earth that is unobservable, or that the Earth is actually meeting you as you fall? Which one requires less made up stuff?
The graviton is not yet part of either QM or GR why are you including it?
It is part of QFT, though.
Aether is the same as dark matter. Why don't you have an issue with that? Seems like you're being selective about what you criticize.
There is data giving 3 sigma confidence in the observation of WIMPs. Does the Aether have any sort of data supporting it?
Aether has Omega 3 fatty acids. Can you beat that?
-
How is gravity a simple explanation?
If you fall off a chair, what's the simplest explanation? A mysterious particle that sucks you to the Earth that is unobservable, or that the Earth is actually meeting you as you fall? Which one requires less made up stuff?
The graviton is not yet part of either QM or GR why are you including it?
the graviton is part of the standard model. it is something the model predicts but has yet to be observed. other particles that were predicted and then observed include the higgs boson. I could ask why do you include aether without any observational evidence to support it. it relies on what we see to be mirage effects, yet how do we know these observations are the result of mirage effects?
I think you are misreading me. I don't believe in Æther because there is no good reason to.
-
How is gravity a simple explanation?
If you fall off a chair, what's the simplest explanation? A mysterious particle that sucks you to the Earth that is unobservable, or that the Earth is actually meeting you as you fall? Which one requires less made up stuff?
The graviton is not yet part of either QM or GR why are you including it?
It is part of QFT, though.
Aether is the same as dark matter. Why don't you have an issue with that? Seems like you're being selective about what you criticize.
There is data giving 3 sigma confidence in the observation of WIMPs. Does the Aether have any sort of data supporting it?
Aether has Omega 3 fatty acids. Can you beat that?
Chia seeds bro... Chia seeds.
-
I think you are misreading me. I don't believe in Æther because there is no good reason to.
sorry. that's what i get for doing this right when i wake up in the morning. god damnit.
Wow, you detective skills are exquisite. I could have used you last week when I lost my keys.
Seriously, have you ever thought you were right, later to figure out that you were wrong? Or, maybe your indoctrination prevents you from realizing that you have been lied to.
Indoctrination shouldn't be an issue here. You can't just claim that all experimental evidence that disagrees with you is intentionally falsified. you have to explain why it is wrong. anomolies can't take down a theory when that theory successfully predicts observable phenomenon. It only means there's something we've yet to find out. besides wikipedia isn't exactly the most reliable of sources. the aether alone does not explain the movement of the planets.
I am still waiting for any experimental evidence conducted by FE scientists. so far the closest thing i've heard about this is 'we have conducted experiments.'
-
I don't, just as many don't either, understand how the sunset and sunrise function on a flat earth, but all I know is that, it IS Flat, and this was just proven by NASA itself during the latest rocket-launch yesterday, April 14th 2015. Watch the video and advance it to the 20:18:55 time on rocket flight timer, there you will see, (AS PROOF!) that the earth is indeed FLAT!!!! They try to hide it as soon as they realize the fish-eye lens is not doing its job to trick us, and they also see what the flight's real-live video is showing, which is what the earth REALLY looks like, so they try to hide it by switching back to command post right after the 20:18:55 flight-time, they then switch back to where we again can see the FLAT earth horizon, but again only for a few seconds, cause then they switch back to command post where you can see all the phonies pretending to be monitoring the flight, which couldn't be further from the TRUTH. At that particular time, you can CLEARLY see how the earth's horizon really looks like, and which is as straight as a ruler. Check it out and see for yourselves. To me at least, that right there proves the earth is FLAT!...even though I still don't understand how on the flat earth the sunset and sunrise work as I said in the beginning? Anyway, it all just happened on the 14th of this week, so how can anyone dispute it when it is straight from NASSSSAAAAAAA, the Narcissistic ASS Administration!!!!!...
-
I'd like to ask why it is that flat earthers believe that FET is simpler than RET? A flat earth theory simply doesn't seem to be as supported by evidence, and the only way to disregard such experiments is by claiming conspiracy. It simply seems that RET makes more sense, has a theory as to how the world was created, etc. Please be polite and courteous in replies, as it is clear standards of politeness have slipped slightly on both sides of this thread.
-
http://wiki.tfes.org/Occam%27s_Razor
Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions. The explanation which makes the least number of assumptions is the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory. Several examples exist below.
What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?
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 straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the solar system, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?
When I walk off the edge of a three foot drop off and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton particles emanating from the earth which accelerates my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?
What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?
What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, black holes, quasars and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light in the sky exactly they appear to be?
-
This wiki simplifies what it wants to in order to skew the facts. Prime example: the NASA section. It should be "what is simpler to believe? A country with an immediate history of using rockets (ww2,they used the German scientists that designed the v2 rocket) poured enormous amounts of money (1.4% gdp at the height) in order to compete with the other most powerful country in the world, as they have on many other occasions (see Vietnam and Korean war, Greek civil war, etc.), and after decades, managed to land men on the moon, or the other view: in order to compete with said rivals, the country used video trickery software they simply didn't have, had an organisation so secret that no one can provide proper proof of fakery, pretended to continue the "space missions" long after the conclusion of the cold war, and silenced anyone who spoke against them? When you say it in a different way , occam's razor simply doesn't apply.
-
no one can provide proper proof of fakery
lol
-
no one can provide proper proof of fakery
lol
Please read this:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63358.0#.VTKXxolwbqA
-
http://wiki.tfes.org/Occam%27s_Razor
Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions. The explanation which makes the least number of assumptions is the simplest explanation.
Which is the simpler explanation for the setting sun: that the sun is actually moving below the horizon or that the sun appears to move below the horizon because of some unknown trick of perspective or the bending of light by some mysterious aether?
-
http://wiki.tfes.org/Occam%27s_Razor
Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions. The explanation which makes the least number of assumptions is the simplest explanation.
Which is the simpler explanation for the setting sun: that the sun is actually moving below the horizon or that the sun appears to move below the horizon because of some unknown trick of perspective or the bending of light by some mysterious aether?
Even better, what is a better explanation for not being able to see America from a tall building in Europe? The earth is in the way, or vanishing point combined with aethric winds combined with air translucency?
-
no one can provide proper proof of fakery
lol
Please read this:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63358.0#.VTKXxolwbqA
Frankly, I don't care what's going on on the other forum. It's just a circle-jerk of RE'ers talking about how smart they think they are.
-
no one can provide proper proof of fakery
lol
Please read this:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63358.0#.VTKXxolwbqA
Frankly, I don't care what's going on on the other forum. It's just a circle-jerk of RE'ers talking about how smart they think they are.
Are you refusing to a) read the extremely valid argument, b) counter it, or c) acknowledge it's correctness?
-
http://wiki.tfes.org/Occam%27s_Razor
Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions. The explanation which makes the least number of assumptions is the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory. Several examples exist below.
What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?
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 straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the solar system, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?
When I walk off the edge of a three foot drop off and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton particles emanating from the earth which accelerates my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?
What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?
What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, black holes, quasars and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light in the sky exactly they appear to be?
i'm sorry, but in order for the earth to be flat i have to assume that what i observe about the earth is a massive illusion and that not just NASA but every single nation on this planet is part of a conspiracy to hide this fact. I also have to assume that some mystical force is pushing the earth upward instead of the earth's mass pulling me down and that the sun's path and apparent lack of size change is the result of an illusion created by aether. I also have to assume that there are invisible clockwork gears that guild the path of the planets. occum's razor is not on FET's side.