The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: james_zombob on September 07, 2014, 03:18:42 PM
-
the earth is round. proof? the coriolis effect. its the reason hurricanes spin opposite directions north and south of the equator. this wouldnt happen on a flat earth but would on a round earth. this link here is a back an forth between myself and flat earthers that has yet to be proven wrong. http://imgur.com/gallery/1oKq4 . also, how do those in the artic and antartic circles experience prolonged periods of weeks of darkness or daylight no matter the time of day during certain seasons? i have friends in alaska and norway who experience this. this wouldnt happen if he earth was truely flat.
-
The coriolis effect does not exist.
-
As was made clear to you in the discussion you posted, this effect is attributed to wind currents. Since you didn't address that at all, I'm not sure what you mean when you say it has "yet to be proven wrong". Just because you ignore a response doesn't mean there wasn't one, bubby.
For your other question, I suggest you read the FAQ.
Oh, and I'm renaming this thread so that it's actually useful.
-
oh boy we're getting le reddit trolled
http://imgur.com/gallery/gDmSV
-
I love when angry noobs are so incredibly certain that they're going to post something no one has ever thought of before, and that upon reading their post the society leaders will realize the error of their ways and officially announce the end of TFES. It's so cute.
_____
Anyway, to properly respond to the OP:
First of all, use proper grammar. There's no reason to make your posts so difficult to read. Second, please focus on one idea at a time. It makes everything easier for everyone.
Your main argument here seems to be Coriolis Force. There are several FET explanations for Coriolis. Some FE'ers refute the existence of Coriolis, for a variety of reasons. I am not one of these and cannot therefore properly explain their views. The theory I subscribe to is rather complicated, but the oversimplified version is that an extraterrestrial substance generally referred to as Aether exerts a force analogous to 'Coriolis'.
Your second point regards seasons, particularly their effects at the poles. This is explained most satisfactorily in the FAQ and I see no reason to restate something which you could very easily find on your own.
-
yes, the coriolis effect is caused by trade winds, and the trade winds themselves are a product of a round rotating earth. if you want to see what im speaking of, http://imgur.com/43nF3uK and here is the source document which explains the coriolis effect and the tradewinds caused by a round rotating earth a little more indepth. if the rotating earth were flat with the north pole being the center, wouldnt the physical forces of inertia push matter towards the south pole/outer wall/edge/whatever? http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/New_Orleans_and_Hurricanes/tropical_cyclones.htm
-
The opposing direction of winds between hemidisk areas is directly due to a lack of landmass in the southern hemidisk compared to the mostly terrestrial northern hemidisk.
-
did you even read it? first its not real then its a product of lack of landmass? do you have anything to back this up? or maybe its because the earth is round, rotates, and relative to out position on the surface of said earth, these winds and cyclones go opposite directions. and if the rotating earth were flat, wouldnt rotational forces push matter like water towards the south pole/ice wall/edge/rim of the great turtle's shell?
-
did you even read it? first its not real then its a product of lack of landmass? do you have anything to back this up? or maybe its because the earth is round, rotates, and relative to out position on the surface of said earth, these winds and cyclones go opposite directions. and if the rotating earth were flat, wouldnt rotational forces push matter like water towards the south pole/ice wall/edge/rim of the great turtle's shell?
I'm not saying the observed rotation of cyclones does not exist, I am simply saying the coriolis effect does not exist, because the Earth is not round. The coriolis effect attempts to incorrectly explain a phenomenon. You're confusing the explanation with the effect.
-
I love when angry noobs are so incredibly certain that they're going to post something no one has ever thought of before, and that upon reading their post the society leaders will realize the error of their ways and officially announce the end of TFES. It's so cute.
I find it cute when FEers point to their past posts, the FAQs, the WIki, EnaG, or some combination thereof and expect the noob's challenge foiled. _____
Anyway, to properly respond to the OP:
First of all, use proper grammar. There's no reason to make your posts so difficult to read. Second, please focus on one idea at a time. It makes everything easier for everyone.
Your main argument here seems to be Coriolis Force. There are several FET explanations for Coriolis. Some FE'ers refute the existence of Coriolis, for a variety of reasons. I am not one of these and cannot therefore properly explain their views. The theory I subscribe to is rather complicated, but the oversimplified version is that an extraterrestrial substance generally referred to as Aether exerts a force analogous to 'Coriolis'.
Your second point regards seasons, particularly their effects at the poles. This is explained most satisfactorily in the FAQ and I see no reason to restate something which you could very easily find on your own.
Oh boy, grammar police report, everyone listen!
So when will TFES decide whether the Coriolis Effect is real (or not)? Since you can see the effect at dozens of children's museum, why doesn't the Zetetic Process resolve this issue right away?
If you have any data to post (or to point to) that this "Aether" exists, please post it. Otherwise you're just making another outlandish claim without evidence.
No, the FAQ does not come close to explaining the seasons. For example, FEer can't even agree on how many poles the Earth has. The season aren't at all explained in the "two pole" model. The one-pole model fails to explain why the Sun appears to the south inside the Antarctic Circle in the South's summer, for example.
-
I love when angry noobs are so incredibly certain that they're going to post something no one has ever thought of before, and that upon reading their post the society leaders will realize the error of their ways and officially announce the end of TFES. It's so cute.
I find it cute when FEers point to their past posts, the FAQs, the WIki, EnaG, or some combination thereof and expect the noob's challenge foiled. _____
Anyway, to properly respond to the OP:
First of all, use proper grammar. There's no reason to make your posts so difficult to read. Second, please focus on one idea at a time. It makes everything easier for everyone.
Your main argument here seems to be Coriolis Force. There are several FET explanations for Coriolis. Some FE'ers refute the existence of Coriolis, for a variety of reasons. I am not one of these and cannot therefore properly explain their views. The theory I subscribe to is rather complicated, but the oversimplified version is that an extraterrestrial substance generally referred to as Aether exerts a force analogous to 'Coriolis'.
Your second point regards seasons, particularly their effects at the poles. This is explained most satisfactorily in the FAQ and I see no reason to restate something which you could very easily find on your own.
Oh boy, grammar police report, everyone listen!
So when will TFES decide whether the Coriolis Effect is real (or not)? Since you can see the effect at dozens of children's museum, why doesn't the Zetetic Process resolve this issue right away?
If you have any data to post (or to point to) that this "Aether" exists, please post it. Otherwise you're just making another outlandish claim without evidence.
No, the FAQ does not come close to explaining the seasons. For example, FEer can't even agree on how many poles the Earth has. The season aren't at all explained in the "two pole" model. The one-pole model fails to explain why the Sun appears to the south inside the Antarctic Circle in the South's summer, for example.
My god, you're judgmental. I'm sorry for being flippant, I guess.
Alright, let's take this a point at a time.
1) Yes, grammar is important. It's difficult to read someone's post when they can't be bothered to use any punctuation. This is not controversial.
2) TFES is not one person. There are many FE'ers and we tend to disagree about various details of Flat Earth Theory, agreeing only that the Earth is flat. So no, you should not expect TFES to universally agree about anything. If you don't like that... well. I dunno what to tell you.
3) This isn't a thread about Aether. If you want to make a thread about Aether I'll be happy to discuss it with you there, but not here.
4) I'm not going to discuss the bipolar model. I know nothing about it. I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the unipolar model. The sun would certainly appear to be in the general vicinity of Antarctica during the Southern winter.
5) We point to the FAQ, ENaG, and former posts for good reason. We're under no obligation to answer your questions and we prefer to minimize the amount of effort we have to put into it. We'd rather not repeat ourselves endlessly.
-
yes, the coriolis effect is caused by trade winds, and the trade winds themselves are a product of a round rotating earth. if you want to see what im speaking of, http://imgur.com/43nF3uK and here is the source document which explains the coriolis effect and the tradewinds caused by a round rotating earth a little more indepth. if the rotating earth were flat with the north pole being the center, wouldnt the physical forces of inertia push matter towards the south pole/outer wall/edge/whatever? http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/New_Orleans_and_Hurricanes/tropical_cyclones.htm
I think you're misunderstanding something about RET. Within the mythology of globularism, trade winds are not the cause of Coriolis. They're an effect of it.
Anyway, there's no reason to believe that the Flat Earth is rotating at all.
-
there is proof the earth rotates, and the coriolis effect proves it does. its an effect of the rotation of our round earth. if you read the paper, it even diagrams what would happen if the earth didnt spin. there is no flat earth theory that explains this (because the earth is round, perfect explanation). the trade winds are caused by the rotation of our planet. the spinning earth is round. you can say that EVERY govt agency, cartographer, physicist, astronomer, nasa, every single credible scientist or person who has been to space is lying, but you need to accept that at some point, youre contrarians. you honestly believe that everyone is lying to us? for what purpose? to what end? does everyone have their own conspiracy theory, because it seems like everyone just has their own half baked ideas. what about the unedited helmetcam footage of the man who parachuted from space? you can see the curvature of the earth. was that faked too? i have a better question. what would it take for you to admit and concede that the earth is round?
-
The one-pole model fails to explain why the Sun appears to the south inside the Antarctic Circle in the South's summer, for example.
4) ...I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the unipolar model. The sun would certainly appear to be in the general vicinity of Antarctica during the Southern winter.
Okay, I can simply the explanation for you. The "unipolar model" does not explain the direction you would obverse the Sun when you stand at 0o 98o S at 00.00 UTC on January 1 of any year. Indeed for all observers inside the Antarctic Circle throughout summer the Sun appears to circle above the horizon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nc6nhtaEt4
Oh, and the video is filmed at the South Pole further evidence of the failure of the "unipolar model".
-
and still noone has explained why the arctic and antarctic experience prolonged periods of daylight and night time. perfectly explained by the round earth (not a) theory. also if the stars are a few thousand feet up like you claim, why do they not change position or appearance from aircraft thousands of feet in the air? btw, i just saw your post about the sunrise, nicely done. this is exactly what i was talking about.
-
also another interesting article i found, many ways that everyone here can prove that the earth is indeed round. http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae535.cfm
-
You really need to read the FAQ...
-
The one-pole model fails to explain why the Sun appears to the south inside the Antarctic Circle in the South's summer, for example.
4) ...I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the unipolar model. The sun would certainly appear to be in the general vicinity of Antarctica during the Southern winter.
Okay, I can simply the explanation for you. The "unipolar model" does not explain the direction you would obverse the Sun when you stand at 0o 98o S at 00.00 UTC on January 1 of any year. Indeed for all observers inside the Antarctic Circle throughout summer the Sun appears to circle above the horizon.
[video removed for the sake of space]
Oh, and the video is filmed at the South Pole further evidence of the failure of the "unipolar model".
The appearance of the midnight sun (and its opposite) is the result of Aetheric eyewalls, which distort and hide the sun in predictable patterns.
-
you didnt read the link, did you?
-
The one-pole model fails to explain why the Sun appears to the south inside the Antarctic Circle in the South's summer, for example.
4) ...I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the unipolar model. The sun would certainly appear to be in the general vicinity of Antarctica during the Southern winter.
Okay, I can simply the explanation for you. The "unipolar model" does not explain the direction you would obverse the Sun when you stand at 0o 98o S at 00.00 UTC on January 1 of any year. Indeed for all observers inside the Antarctic Circle throughout summer the Sun appears to circle above the horizon.
[video removed for the sake of space]
Oh, and the video is filmed at the South Pole further evidence of the failure of the "unipolar model".
The appearance of the midnight sun (and its opposite) is the result of Aetheric eyewalls, which distort and hide the sun in predictable patterns.
As you've said, this thread is not about the Aether. If you'd like to discuss that outlandish claim, please start a new thread and I'll ask you to provide your data there.
Also, you did not counter the point that the film was made at the South Pole. Should we assume that you now accept its existence?
By the way, your post is a great example of the "special pleading" fallacy.
-
also, id like some source on "aetheric eyewalls" and to explain this video too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RR-tzGOyi0 . thousands if not millions of people watched this man jump from the edge of space (128k up). you can see the curvature of the round earth.
-
Aetheric eyewalls are real, and we experience it every day by looking at the Sun. What more evidence do you need?
Einstien believed in aether. Are you trying to say that Einstien was wrong?
-
The one-pole model fails to explain why the Sun appears to the south inside the Antarctic Circle in the South's summer, for example.
4) ...I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the unipolar model. The sun would certainly appear to be in the general vicinity of Antarctica during the Southern winter.
Okay, I can simply the explanation for you. The "unipolar model" does not explain the direction you would obverse the Sun when you stand at 0o 98o S at 00.00 UTC on January 1 of any year. Indeed for all observers inside the Antarctic Circle throughout summer the Sun appears to circle above the horizon.
[video removed for the sake of space]
Oh, and the video is filmed at the South Pole further evidence of the failure of the "unipolar model".
The appearance of the midnight sun (and its opposite) is the result of Aetheric eyewalls, which distort and hide the sun in predictable patterns.
As you've said, this thread is not about the Aether. If you'd like to discuss that outlandish claim, please start a new thread and I'll ask you to provide your data there.
Also, you did not counter the point that the film was made at the South Pole. Should we assume that you now accept its existence?
By the way, your post is a great example of the "special pleading" fallacy.
Why are you so angry? Are you CT's alt or something?
First of all, sun should not be capitalized. That correction was unnecessary and incorrect. Generally accepted stylistics is that Sol, the proper name for the sun, should be capitalized but sun should not. The same goes for Luna and the moon.
Second, I merely answered the question proposed to me. I've gone out of my way to avoid getting into the details of Aetheric Theory, because this is neither the time nor the place. Also, I'm doing a frankly ridiculous amount of homework for my classes right now and don't have time to put into a proper response. Like I said, if you want me to go into detail I'll be happy to, just start a separate thread for it.
No, I do not accept that the video was taken at the South Pole. However, such discussions are more the area of Tom and Thork. I'm far more interested in the physical mechanics of the Flat Earth and have no desire to consider why or how some are deluded into believing that Amundsen-Scott is at the South Pole.
Finally, I am not guilty of special pleading.
-
you dont accept it was taken at the south pole? what would it take to prove to you? because for all your talk of free thinking and intellectualism, there is a LOT of evidence denial and conspiracy theories that make no sense. also, aether? yeah, i think einstein was wrong. he was deeply flawed on alot of things. dont believe me? ask google.
-
you expect us to believe that the earth is flat and say youre open to evidence but you dismiss all evidence against you as faked. i tried to research the aether youre talking about. could you provide some source that yall didnt write half-way and not finish, also some demonstrable experiments for your conclusions? and dont tell me FAQ, its all a jumbled, contradicting and highly varying mess. ive already provided some that yall can do right now to prove the earth is round and there is already lots of hard scientific evidence that the earth is round.
-
So you trust Google, a multimillion dollar company, over Einstien? Wow. We're done here.
-
I've gone out of my way to avoid getting into the details of Aetheric Theory, because this is neither the time nor the place. Also, I'm doing a frankly ridiculous amount of homework for my classes right now and don't have time to put into a proper response. Like I said, if you want me to go into detail I'll be happy to, just start a separate thread for it.
No, I do not accept that the video was taken at the South Pole. However, such discussions are more the area of Tom and Thork. I'm far more interested in the physical mechanics of the Flat Earth and have no desire to consider why or how some are deluded into believing that Amundsen-Scott is at the South Pole.
Finally, I am not guilty of special pleading.
So you dodge both challenges. Noted. james_zombob seems to have stumped the FEers.
You're making the claim about the "Aether". If you can't find the time to post your data, then I'm content to leave your outlandish claim unsupported. I hardly need to start a thread for you to show us how you applied the Zetetic Process to demonstrate the existence and alleged effects of the "Aether". How about when any FEer has evidence he (or she) posts it? Wouldn't that be wonderful?
I don't discuss conspiracy theory comments outside of FEG ("deluded into believing" as opposed to deluded into what else"?).
Aetheric eyewalls are real, and we experience it every day by looking at the Sun. What more evidence do you need?
Einstien believed in aether. Are you trying to say that Einstien was wrong?
If you're going to make an "appeal to authority" fallacy, please try to get your facts correct.
At the turn of the 20th century, most scientists believed that light traveled through an invisible form of matter they called ether. Einstein disagreed.
Do post your evidence (even if it's available "every day") that the "Aetheric eyewalls" are real.
-
We see them everyday, gully, look out your window. Go outside. Unless you're blind or something. In that case, I apologize in advance.
-
We see them everyday, gully, look out your window. Go outside. Unless you're blind or something. In that case, I apologize in advance.
I guess I need to repeat myself. Do post your evidence (even if it's available "every day") that the "Aetheric eyewalls" are real.
-
Do post your evidence (even if it's available "every day") that the "Aetheric eyewalls" are real.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Sunset_2007-1.jpg)
Approximately half the sun in this photo is hidden behind an eyewall.
-
Do post your evidence (even if it's available "every day") that the "Aetheric eyewalls" are real.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Sunset_2007-1.jpg)
Approximately half the sun in this photo is hidden behind an eyewall.
Do tell us how you determined that. I recommend that you try to make a relevant ray-trace diagram. See, for example: http://dvapphysics.wikispaces.com/Ray+Trace+Diagrams (http://dvapphysics.wikispaces.com/Ray+Trace+Diagrams)
-
sun
Please stop doing this. It's not just that it's unhelpful and pedantic, but you're virtually never right when it comes to the subtleties of English grammar. We'll be better off without you causing unnecessary confusion with your under-researched remarks.
Names of celestial bodies: Mars, Saturn, the Milky Way. Do not, however, capitalize earth, moon, sun, except when those names appear in a context in which other (capitalized) celestial bodies are mentioned. "I like it here on earth," but "It is further from Earth to Mars than it is from Mercury to the Sun."
-
I've gone out of my way to avoid getting into the details of Aetheric Theory, because this is neither the time nor the place. Also, I'm doing a frankly ridiculous amount of homework for my classes right now and don't have time to put into a proper response. Like I said, if you want me to go into detail I'll be happy to, just start a separate thread for it.
No, I do not accept that the video was taken at the South Pole. However, such discussions are more the area of Tom and Thork. I'm far more interested in the physical mechanics of the Flat Earth and have no desire to consider why or how some are deluded into believing that Amundsen-Scott is at the South Pole.
Finally, I am not guilty of special pleading.
So you dodge both challenges. Noted. james_zombob seems to have stumped the FEers.
You're making the claim about the "Aether". If you can't find the time to post your data, then I'm content to leave your outlandish claim unsupported. I hardly need to start a thread for you to show us how you applied the Zetetic Process to demonstrate the existence and alleged effects of the "Aether". How about when any FEer has evidence he (or she) posts it? Wouldn't that be wonderful?
I don't discuss conspiracy theory comments outside of FEG ("deluded into believing" as opposed to deluded into what else"?).
I dodge neither challenge. This is not the right place for one, and I'm not the right arguer for the other. Stop trying to derail the thread. It's rude.
_________
James, if you want I can go into detail about Aether. I'll write up a better, more detailed description in a bit.
-
thousands if not millions of people watched this man jump from the edge of space (128k up). you can see the curvature of the round earth.
lol. If you watch the video, sometimes the Earth looks convexly curved, and sometimes it is concavely curved. It is called a fish eye lens.
-
and i would like to see a ray chart as well, something more scientifically accepted that "aether eyewalls"
-
oh my goodness, you guys are a bunch of denialists. everything is faked except what you put up. if its a fish eye lens, prove it. also, grammar? funny, i thought it was a debate on the flat earth fallacy, i mean theory. and yeah i trust a multi milliond dollar comapny over your ramblings, yes. and if you want more proof einstein was deeply flawed, ask a physicist.
Are you saying that the horizon is actually sometimes convex shaped, and sometimes concave shaped?
I find the simpler answer to be that they used a fish eye lens.
-
Einstien believed in aether. Are you trying to say that Einstien was wrong?
This is terrible, just terrible.
-
if its a fish eye lens, prove it.
It's not exactly a disputed fact, you know:
http://techland.time.com/2010/08/25/red-bull-stratos-how-do-you-document-a-freefall-from-120000-feet-up/
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-10/14/felix-space-jump
http://dailysliceofpi.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/what-felix-baumgartner-really-saw-from-the-edge-of-space/
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/05/felix-baumgartner-jump-story
http://sourcefed.com/felix-baumgartners-space-jump-helmet-cam-footage/
If you need proof, I refer you to simple geometry. With a normal human field of view (about 135°), the curvature you'd expect to see at this altitude if the earth was round (or under EAT conditions) would be reasonably clear, but not *that* obvious.
-
and i would like to see a ray chart as well, something more scientifically accepted that "aether eyewalls"
I'm still working on such details. I consider it my FET thesis (on that note: anyone else interesting in an Honorary Doctorate in Flat Earth Theory? Maybe I should start a thread about that in S&C), and as such am understandably hesitant to post my unfinished work. I can give you as much as I can, though.
-
They didn't exclusively use a fish eye lens. Plenty of views from other cameras that show the round earth. Can you account for those, without falling on "it was faked"? An let me know if you get a ray chart working. Because that photo looked like refraction to me.
-
They didn't exclusively use a fish eye lens. Plenty of views from other cameras that show the round earth. Can you account for those, without falling on "it was faked"? An let me know if you get a ray chart working. Because that photo looked like refraction to me.
Our general rule is that, due to the countless variables which can effect a picture and the tiny difference one would expect been a picture demonstrating RET and FET, pictures are meaningless. To put it more scientifically, the standard deviation in the curvature of a picture can be expected to be the same as, or greater than, the expected curvature. This is due to refraction, camera lens, weather conditions, etc.
-
And what if I went to your house and launched a weather balloon with a camera that you inspected, then launched it in view of you with an attached video camera to document the curve of the earth? Would you accept that? Also, just thinking, but if the earth was flat and the sun always above us, wouldn't that make sunset impossible? I read on another thread here someone posted but saw no response or rebuttal from the FEers. Been sittin there a while too.
-
Also, just thinking, but if the earth was flat and the sun always above us, wouldn't that make sunset impossible?
For the love of Bambi, read the FAQ already.
-
And what if I went to your house and launched a weather balloon with a camera that you inspected, then launched it in view of you with an attached video camera to document the curve of the earth? Would you accept that? Also, just thinking, but if the earth was flat and the sun always above us, wouldn't that make sunset impossible? I read on another thread here someone posted but saw no response or rebuttal from the FEers. Been sittin there a while too.
Firstly, if you came to my house with a weather balloon and a camera I would probably call the police and have you arrested. Secondly, you can spout hypotheticals all day but until you prove it (without using a fish eye lense or other camera trickery) then you’ve got nothing. As it stands now, almost all photos of “Earth curvature” end up being proven as fish eye sorcery or complete fabrications done with video editing software. Even pilots admit that there is no notable curvature to the Earth when flying.
-
Even pilots admit that there is no notable curvature to the Earth when flying.
Surely you're mistaken. For one obvious counterexample read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/05murray.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/05murray.html?_r=0)
He became the first human to see the curvature of the earth.
Didn't we just prompt you to check your facts?
-
Even pilots admit that there is no notable curvature to the Earth when flying.
Surely you're mistaken. For one obvious counterexample read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/05murray.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/05murray.html?_r=0)
He became the first human to see the curvature of the earth.
Didn't we just prompt you to check your facts?
"He became the first human to see the curvature of the earth" is just a passing rhetorical statement. It's a saying that has been commonly used since aviation. It doesn't mean anything more than that. People assume the Earth is round nowadays, so they figure this statement makes sense and applies... but it doesn't. Funny that Arthur Murray himself didn't say those words.
-
The FAQ is a jumbled mess as I've already said and it doesn't address those issues brought up in that thread. I could continue debate on that thread, but last I checked there wasn't a satisfactory reply. Also, the wxr balloon, you still didn't answer my question. Would you accept THAT evidence? Let's see how far your denial really goes...
-
Even pilots admit that there is no notable curvature to the Earth when flying.
Surely you're mistaken. For one obvious counterexample read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/05murray.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/05murray.html?_r=0)
He became the first human to see the curvature of the earth.
Didn't we just prompt you to check your facts?
"He became the first human to see the curvature of the earth" is just a passing rhetorical statement. It's a saying that has been commonly used since aviation. It doesn't mean anything more than that. People assume the Earth is round nowadays, so they figure this statement makes sense and applies... but it doesn't. Funny that Arthur Murray himself didn't say those words.
So you have to resort to an "ad populum" fallacy. So did you review everything ever said by every pilot before you made your outlandish claim?
-
So did you review everything ever said by every pilot before you made your outlandish claim?
Did you?
You've made several 'outlandish' claims on behalf of pilots as well, actually more than I have. Maybe you should follow your own example?
-
The FAQ is a jumbled mess as I've already said and it doesn't address those issues brought up in that thread. I could continue debate on that thread, but last I checked there wasn't a satisfactory reply. Also, the wxr balloon, you still didn't answer my question. Would you accept THAT evidence? Let's see how far your denial really goes...
I wouldn't accept it myself, because many of the variables which can affect visibility are independent of the camera and difficult to identify. There's only so much you can do.
As for the FAQ,
Also, just thinking, but if the earth was flat and the sun always above us, wouldn't that make sunset impossible? I read on another thread here someone posted but saw no response or rebuttal from the FEers. Been sittin there a while too.
Day and night cycles are easily explained on a flat earth. The sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night. The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves. The picture below illustrates how the sun moves and also how seasons work on a flat earth. The apparent effect of the sun rising and setting is usually explained as a perspective effect.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/7/70/SunAnimation.gif/180px-SunAnimation.gif)
There's more in the actual FAQ, as well as links to further reading about day/night cycles. Feel free to peruse it at your leisure.
-
Even pilots admit that there is no notable curvature to the Earth when flying.
Surely you're mistaken. For one obvious counterexample read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/05murray.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/05murray.html?_r=0)
He became the first human to see the curvature of the earth.
Didn't we just prompt you to check your facts?
"He became the first human to see the curvature of the earth" is just a passing rhetorical statement. It's a saying that has been commonly used since aviation. It doesn't mean anything more than that. People assume the Earth is round nowadays, so they figure this statement makes sense and applies... but it doesn't. Funny that Arthur Murray himself didn't say those words.
So you have to resort to an "ad populum" fallacy. So did you review everything ever said by every pilot before you made your outlandish claim?
I think you might be confused as to what logical fallacies are. Vaux is suggesting that the writer was guilty of argumentum ad populum. He isn't himself guilty of it and I don't really understand why you're calling him out on it. If you disagree the writer was guilty of this fallacy, I'd be interested to see why.
If you really want to get into a discussion of logical fallacies (which I'm more than happy to engage you in), you are yourself guilty of onus probandi. This means that you've attempted to shift the burden of proof to force us to prove that this man didn't say he saw the curvature of the earth, when in reality the burden of proof is upon you to prove that he did.
-
The FAQ is a jumbled mess as I've already said and it doesn't address those issues brought up in that thread. I could continue debate on that thread, but last I checked there wasn't a satisfactory reply. Also, the wxr balloon, you still didn't answer my question. Would you accept THAT evidence? Let's see how far your denial really goes...
I wouldn't accept it myself, because many of the variables which can affect visibility are independent of the camera and difficult to identify. There's only so much you can do.
As for the FAQ,
Also, just thinking, but if the earth was flat and the sun always above us, wouldn't that make sunset impossible? I read on another thread here someone posted but saw no response or rebuttal from the FEers. Been sittin there a while too.
Day and night cycles are easily explained on a flat earth. The sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night. The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves. The picture below illustrates how the sun moves and also how seasons work on a flat earth. The apparent effect of the sun rising and setting is usually explained as a perspective effect.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/7/70/SunAnimation.gif/180px-SunAnimation.gif)
There's more in the actual FAQ, as well as links to further reading about day/night cycles. Feel free to peruse it at your leisure.
Cool. So now you want us to reject the aether as the apparent cause of the sun's rising and setting (See Rushy's post, for example.) and embrace "perspective". Didn't someone use the word "jumble" lately to describe the FE FAQ?
Oh, and by the way, the FAQ's gif is obviously wrong. It shows the Sun over the Equator, so it does not match the reality that everywhere, but the poles, get equal periods of light and dark on that day. I guess that's just more jumble, huh?
This means that you've attempted to shift the burden of proof to force us to prove that this man didn't say he saw the curvature of the earth, when in reality the burden of proof is upon you to prove that he did.
Do tell where I made that claim? I really thought that Vaux made the first (and unsupported) claim that pilot admit that they can't see the curvature. Why would you consider that claim my burden to "disprove"?
-
This means that you've attempted to shift the burden of proof to force us to prove that this man didn't say he saw the curvature of the earth, when in reality the burden of proof is upon you to prove that he did.
Do tell where I made that claim? I really thought that Vaux made the first (and unsupported) claim that pilot admit that they can't see the curvature. Why would you consider that claim my burden to "disprove"?
The problem is: the pilot didn't say that he saw the curvature. The article did. Please find me a quote where Arthur Murray says anything about curvature.
-
So did you review everything ever said by every pilot before you made your outlandish claim?
Did you?
You've made several 'outlandish' claims on behalf of pilots as well, actually more than I have. Maybe you should follow your own example?
Please do tell me where I made an unsupported claim. I'll gladly retract it until I do. Sorry about that.
-
Jumble is a good word. First it's a ether now it's perspective.
-
Jumble is a good word. First it's a ether now it's perspective.
Oh, you've just started to see their problems. Consider as well that their "Zetetic Process" can produce only results that are beyond contradiction.
"Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.
-
Please do tell me where I made an unsupported claim. I'll gladly retract it until I do. Sorry about that.
I already have. Please do reread my posts if necessary.
-
Please do tell me where I made an unsupported claim. I'll gladly retract it until I do. Sorry about that.
I already have. Please do reread my posts if necessary.
So you have nothing. Got it. Thanks anyway,
-
Please do tell me where I made an unsupported claim. I'll gladly retract it until I do. Sorry about that.
I already have. Please do reread my posts if necessary.
So you have nothing. Got it. Thanks anyway,
You asked if you made an unsupported claim. You implied that Mr. Murray, a pilot, said that he saw the curvature of the Earth. This is untrue. The article made this claim, the pilot did not. You made an unsupported claim... now, support it with evidence or stop wasting our time.
Need me to dumb it down any further?
-
Please do tell me where I made an unsupported claim. I'll gladly retract it until I do. Sorry about that.
I already have. Please do reread my posts if necessary.
So you have nothing. Got it. Thanks anyway,
You asked if you made an unsupported claim. You implied that Mr. Murray, a pilot, said that he saw the curvature of the Earth. This is untrue. The article made this claim, the pilot did not. You made an unsupported claim... now, support it with evidence or stop wasting our time.
I make no assurances that you've inferred correctly. The reference documents Murray as seeing the curvature of the Earth. That is the counterexample to your outlandish claim that pilots admit otherwise. I've cited my reference. That supports my claim. That's simple, straightforward, and easy to understand.
You, on the other hand, provide no evidence to support your outlandish claim.
-
Please do tell me where I made an unsupported claim. I'll gladly retract it until I do. Sorry about that.
I already have. Please do reread my posts if necessary.
So you have nothing. Got it. Thanks anyway,
You asked if you made an unsupported claim. You implied that Mr. Murray, a pilot, said that he saw the curvature of the Earth. This is untrue. The article made this claim, the pilot did not. You made an unsupported claim... now, support it with evidence or stop wasting our time.
I make no assurances that you've inferred correctly. The reference documents Murray as seeing the curvature of the Earth. That is the counterexample to your outlandish claim that pilots admit otherwise. I've cited my reference. That supports my claim. That's simple, straightforward, and easy to understand.
You, on the other hand, provide no evidence to support your outlandish claim.
Where did Murray say he saw the curvature of the Earth? I don't see it in the article. "He saw the curvature of the Earth" is a common rhetorical statement regarding flight, especially in this context where there is no source given to the fact that he actually saw the curvature. Can you not differentiate between these two things?? You're reaching here, Gulliver.
-
Gulliver, you've provided evidence. Your evidence has been rejected on grounds of being flimsy and logically unlikely. Now you have to try again.
-
Please do tell me where I made an unsupported claim. I'll gladly retract it until I do. Sorry about that.
I already have. Please do reread my posts if necessary.
So you have nothing. Got it. Thanks anyway,
You asked if you made an unsupported claim. You implied that Mr. Murray, a pilot, said that he saw the curvature of the Earth. This is untrue. The article made this claim, the pilot did not. You made an unsupported claim... now, support it with evidence or stop wasting our time.
I make no assurances that you've inferred correctly. The reference documents Murray as seeing the curvature of the Earth. That is the counterexample to your outlandish claim that pilots admit otherwise. I've cited my reference. That supports my claim. That's simple, straightforward, and easy to understand.
You, on the other hand, provide no evidence to support your outlandish claim.
Where did Murray say he saw the curvature of the Earth? I don't see it in the article. "He saw the curvature of the Earth" is a common rhetorical statement regarding flight, especially in this context where there is no source given to the fact that he actually saw the curvature. Can you not differentiate between these two things?? You're reaching here, Gulliver.
Again, I never claimed that Murray said he saw the curvature of the Earth. He saw it, as reported in the reference. He was the only person on the test flight. Are you claiming that he admitted that he could not see the curvature, even though he did?
Gulliver, you've provided evidence. Your evidence has been rejected on grounds of being flimsy and logically unlikely. Now you have to try again.
Why would I have to provide evidence to counter Vaux's outlandish claim? Who are you to reject the reference? Do tell me how it is "logically unlikely". Please do support your claims better. Thanks.
-
Then what was the article for, Gulliver? Just to show us that someone can type "he saw the curvature of the Earth"? There's no source or citation for this claim. It's not evidence or counter-evidence to anything anyone in this entire thread has said. If you weren't trying to prove a point with the article, then why do you waste our time? Just to raise your post count?
-
Jumble is a good word. First it's a ether now it's perspective.
Unsurprisingly, this is also addressed by the FAQ.
Some of the questions here have multiple answers due to differing views of flat earth theory among some of our members.
You really should try reading it.
-
Then what was the article for, Gulliver? Just to show us that someone can type "he saw the curvature of the Earth"? There's no source or citation for this claim. It's not evidence or counter-evidence to anything anyone in this entire thread has said. If you weren't trying to prove a point with the article, then why do you waste our time? Just to raise your post count?
I claim that he saw the curvature. I can point to various other citations (and other pilots) if you want me to prove that Google still works for me.
I claim that he would not admit as you claim that he could not see what he did see. Your outlandish claim is 1) unsupported and 2) invalidated by the citation. You claim that he admitted that he could not see the curvature during flight, but have produced no evidence.
Some of the questions here have multiple answers due to differing views of flat earth theory among some of our members.
So you've documented in the FAQ that it's a jumble. That's for clarifying that. How's that "Zetetic Process" working for you now? Are you still producing results beyond contradiction?
-
I claim that he saw the curvature. I can point to various other citations (and other pilots) if you want me to prove that Google still works for me.
I claim that he would not admit as you claim that he could not see what he did see. Your outlandish claim is 1) unsupported and 2) invalidated by the citation. You claim that he admitted that he could not see the curvature during flight, but have produced no evidence.
I never claimed that. Don't put words in my mouth. I am simply trying to point out that an article that says "he saw the curvature of the Earth" is not evidence of anything. The pilot didn't even say those words, so how the hell are you deeming this as proof that he saw the curvature of the Earth? I can't believe that I have to explain this to you again but, "he/I/they/it saw the curvature of the Earth" is a common rhetorical statement referencing flight. It comes from round Earth ideology, yes, but it is still not grounded in reality. It's like someone saying "looks like the cat got your tongue". It doesn't literally mean that a cat has latched on to your tongue.
Are you telling me that if I created my own article and said "Earth is flat", that would be irrefutable proof? Because by your logic, it seems like it would.
-
So you've documented in the FAQ that it's a jumble.
No.
That's for clarifying that.
No problem! How kind of you to thank me in advance of the actual clarification.
How's that "Zetetic Process" working for you now?
Rather well. Unfortunately, not all Flat Earthers are Zeteticists, and we do have to represent the views of all most.
It's okay, CT, one day you'll get it.
-
I am simply trying to point out that an article that says "he saw the curvature of the Earth" is not evidence of anything.
Here is probably the place you fail the worst. A reference from an accredited source is evidence.
-
I am simply trying to point out that an article that says "he saw the curvature of the Earth" is not evidence of anything.
Here is probably the place you fail the worst. A reference from an accredited source is evidence.
Excuse me while I regain my composure, because I really thought you were a bit smarter than this.
Until next time.
-
I am simply trying to point out that an article that says "he saw the curvature of the Earth" is not evidence of anything.
Here is probably the place you fail the worst. A reference from an accredited source is evidence.
Excuse me while I regain my composure, because I really thought you were a bit smarter than this.
Until next time.
So can you produce any reference to support your claim that an article is not evidence of anything? (I love the Escher.)
-
You know what's funny? All these different flat earth theories. You know why there's so many (one might say a "jumble") of them? Because none of them stand up by themselves. One gets shot down "well that's just ONE of the theories".and you try to keep it going. Could you point to one that DOESNT have any holes, your best one so to speak? Because I got a theory that stands up to it all: the planet we are on is round and spins and there is not a global conspiracy that's lasted for centuries upon centuries upon centuries and managed to fool the smartest people in existence.
-
But your model is flawed. It doesn't "stand up to it all" in the slightest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
By your own logic, a flawed model must be completely wrong, and thus the Earth simply can't be round. (Of course, that logic is completely messed up, but hey, your claims, not mine)
-
But your model is flawed. It doesn't "stand up to it all" in the slightest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
By your own logic, a flawed model must be completely wrong, and thus the Earth simply can't be round. (Of course, that logic is completely messed up, but hey, your claims, not mine)
Sorry please do explain how RET doesn't stand up to it all. His point was clear. Each FE model, like a a game of whack-a-mole, falls only to have another try (and fail) to take its place. RET, in contrast, makes no special pleading, accepts the elimination of a hypothesis, or theory, or even fact, based on evidence. RET scours for the discrepancies, as you so kindly documented, and stands up to each, yielding when the evidence, obtained through the Scientific Method, demands.
-
RET, in contrast, makes no special pleading, accepts the elimination of a hypothesis, or theory, or even fact, based on evidence.
So the theory of gravitation has been eliminated? How curious.
No, what I'm saying is that we're aware that some aspects of FET require further investigation. That's why we currently have a number of competing ideas, each attempting to explain the observed phenomena as well as possible. We're not going to eliminate them just because someone raised a misconstrued or insignificant issue with them unless we find an explanation that better fits the evidence.
-
You know what's funny? All these different flat earth theories. You know why there's so many (one might say a "jumble") of them? Because none of them stand up by themselves. One gets shot down "well that's just ONE of the theories".and you try to keep it going. Could you point to one that DOESNT have any holes, your best one so to speak? Because I got a theory that stands up to it all: the planet we are on is round and spins and there is not a global conspiracy that's lasted for centuries upon centuries upon centuries and managed to fool the smartest people in existence.
FET is like any other science trying to explain the origins of the universe and life around us. Here's (http://www.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_different_theories_about_the_origin_of_the_universe) a list of different theories attempting to explain how the universe formed.
Naturally, there are several theories, and that's a good thing because someone is bound to get it right eventually. It's trial and error. That's how most forms of science work. Before you start criticizing us look at your own science, because it's doing the same thing.
-
RET, in contrast, makes no special pleading, accepts the elimination of a hypothesis, or theory, or even fact, based on evidence.
So the theory of gravitation has been eliminated? How curious.
No, what I'm saying is that we're aware that some aspects of FET require further investigation. That's why we currently have a number of competing ideas, each attempting to explain the observed phenomena as well as possible. We're not going to eliminate them just because someone raised a misconstrued or insignificant issue with them unless we find an explanation that better fits the evidence.
I made no such claim. Unless you're claiming that you have evidence that the theory of gravitation should be eliminated based on that evidence. If so, I'm sure the world would appreciate your posting of that evidence. Please be sure to include the documentation of your application of the ZP.
You know what's funny? All these different flat earth theories. You know why there's so many (one might say a "jumble") of them? Because none of them stand up by themselves. One gets shot down "well that's just ONE of the theories".and you try to keep it going. Could you point to one that DOESNT have any holes, your best one so to speak? Because I got a theory that stands up to it all: the planet we are on is round and spins and there is not a global conspiracy that's lasted for centuries upon centuries upon centuries and managed to fool the smartest people in existence.
FET is like any other science trying to explain the origins of the universe and life around us. Here's (http://www.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_different_theories_about_the_origin_of_the_universe) a list of different theories attempting to explain how the universe formed.
Naturally, there are several theories, and that's a good thing because someone is bound to get it right eventually. It's trial and error. That's how most forms of science work. Before you start criticizing us look at your own science, because it's doing the same thing.
What I'm saying is the FEer regularly declare that "idea X" explains "observation Y" when all he or she has is a glimmer of a hope that that's true. Look in this thread, for example. No FEer should declare that the Southern Midnight Sun is explained by the "aether" before completing either the ZP or SM or both.
-
What I'm saying is the FEer regularly declare that "idea X" explains "observation Y" when all he or she has is a glimmer of a hope that that's true. Look in this thread, for example. No FEer should declare that the Southern Midnight Sun is explained by the "aether" before completing either the ZP or SM or both.
Aether is a real phenomenon that formed during the creation of the universe. If you keep refusing this simple fact (Einstien even confirmed it) then I don't believe you'll be able to progress any further with our discussions.
Have you considered trolling a different forum?
-
I made no such claim.
Feels bad when others do it to you, huh?
-
What I'm saying is the FEer regularly declare that "idea X" explains "observation Y" when all he or she has is a glimmer of a hope that that's true. Look in this thread, for example. No FEer should declare that the Southern Midnight Sun is explained by the "aether" before completing either the ZP or SM or both.
Aether is a real phenomenon that formed during the creation of the universe. If you keep refusing this simple fact (Einstien even confirmed it) then I don't believe you'll be able to progress any further with our discussions.
Have you considered trolling a different forum?
Please do present your evidence of this simple fact. Please be sure to note how you determined that Einstein, a theoretical physicist, confirmed it and that this ether is the same as the one FET relies on for various effects and, of course, document how you know that your ether has these effects. Thanks.
-
I made no such claim.
Feels bad when others do it to you, huh?
Nope. I feel just fine, but thanks for the concern.
-
What I'm saying is the FEer regularly declare that "idea X" explains "observation Y" when all he or she has is a glimmer of a hope that that's true. Look in this thread, for example. No FEer should declare that the Southern Midnight Sun is explained by the "aether" before completing either the ZP or SM or both.
Aether is a real phenomenon that formed during the creation of the universe. If you keep refusing this simple fact (Einstien even confirmed it) then I don't believe you'll be able to progress any further with our discussions.
Have you considered trolling a different forum?
Please do present your evidence of this simple fact. Please be sure to note how you determined that Einstein, a theoretical physicist, confirmed it and that this ether is the same as the one FET relies on for various effects and, of course, document how you know that your ether has these effects. Thanks.
This thread is about The Coriolis Effect. If you have questions about aether, please read the FAQS. Aether is outlined in great detail on the wiki.
Thank you for your time. If you have any further questions: read the FAQs.
-
What I'm saying is the FEer regularly declare that "idea X" explains "observation Y" when all he or she has is a glimmer of a hope that that's true. Look in this thread, for example. No FEer should declare that the Southern Midnight Sun is explained by the "aether" before completing either the ZP or SM or both.
Aether is a real phenomenon that formed during the creation of the universe. If you keep refusing this simple fact (Einstien even confirmed it) then I don't believe you'll be able to progress any further with our discussions.
Have you considered trolling a different forum?
Please do present your evidence of this simple fact. Please be sure to note how you determined that Einstein, a theoretical physicist, confirmed it and that this ether is the same as the one FET relies on for various effects and, of course, document how you know that your ether has these effects. Thanks.
This thread is about The Coriolis Effect. If you have questions about aether, please read the FAQS. Aether is outlined in great detail on the wiki.
Thank you for your time. If you have any further questions: read the FAQs.
So you can't support your outlandish claim, yet again. Noted (and expected). Do stop back when you have evidence to support you.
-
So you can't support your outlandish claim, yet again. Noted (and expected). Do stop back when you have evidence to support you.
It really is quite tiring having to provide links for you. You're not very good with a computer, are you?
http://wiki.tfes.org/Aether
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
Wow, so many different scientists developed their own Aether theories simultaneously without help from each other. But I'm sure they're all just making it up, right Gullly? ::)
Once you've read the material you're debating about I suspect we'll be able to have a real conversation. Until then your bully tactics and playing-dumb are going to be ignored.
-
What I'm saying is the FEer regularly declare that "idea X" explains "observation Y" when all he or she has is a glimmer of a hope that that's true. Look in this thread, for example. No FEer should declare that the Southern Midnight Sun is explained by the "aether" before completing either the ZP or SM or both.
Aether is a real phenomenon that formed during the creation of the universe. If you keep refusing this simple fact (Einstien even confirmed it) then I don't believe you'll be able to progress any further with our discussions.
Have you considered trolling a different forum?
Stop conflating Einstein's conception of Aether with your own self-serving idea. Einstein knew the Earth was round based on the preponderance of astronomical evidence and never proposed a single phenomenon that is put forth on this site. It is extremely dishonest to try and shoehorn his science in to this site's pseudo-science.
-
What I'm saying is the FEer regularly declare that "idea X" explains "observation Y" when all he or she has is a glimmer of a hope that that's true. Look in this thread, for example. No FEer should declare that the Southern Midnight Sun is explained by the "aether" before completing either the ZP or SM or both.
Aether is a real phenomenon that formed during the creation of the universe. If you keep refusing this simple fact (Einstien even confirmed it) then I don't believe you'll be able to progress any further with our discussions.
Have you considered trolling a different forum?
Please do present your evidence of this simple fact. Please be sure to note how you determined that Einstein, a theoretical physicist, confirmed it and that this ether is the same as the one FET relies on for various effects and, of course, document how you know that your ether has these effects. Thanks.
This thread is about The Coriolis Effect. If you have questions about aether, please read the FAQS. Aether is outlined in great detail on the wiki.
Thank you for your time. If you have any further questions: read the FAQs.
So you can't support your outlandish claim, yet again. Noted (and expected). Do stop back when you have evidence to support you.
Who's refusing to support a claim (also obvious ClockTower is obvious)? Make a thread elsewhere. We can discuss it there. This is not a complicated idea. Now stop derailing the thread. It continues to be distasteful.
-
Who's refusing to support a claim (also obvious ClockTower is obvious)? Make a thread elsewhere. We can discuss it there. This is not a complicated idea. Now stop derailing the thread. It continues to be distasteful.
As I pointed out, Vaux makes the following unsupported, outlandish claim:
Aether is a real phenomenon that formed during the creation of the universe. If you keep refusing this simple fact (Einstien even confirmed it) then I don't believe you'll be able to progress any further with our discussions.
In particular, he fails miserably in understanding that the typical uses of the word "ether" does not match FE's ether's characteristics. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories)
-
Who's refusing to support a claim (also obvious ClockTower is obvious)? Make a thread elsewhere. We can discuss it there. This is not a complicated idea. Now stop derailing the thread. It continues to be distasteful.
As I pointed out, Vaux makes the following unsupported, outlandish claim:
Aether is a real phenomenon that formed during the creation of the universe. If you keep refusing this simple fact (Einstien even confirmed it) then I don't believe you'll be able to progress any further with our discussions.
In particular, he fails miserably in understanding that the typical uses of the word "ether" does not match FE's ether's characteristics. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories)
There are many interpretations of aether. They are all essentially the same thing however. Aether has many functions.
-
funny thing is, there only needs to be one interpretation of the round earth truth. its funny how when were talking about aether/ether einstein is a the epitome of genius, and i say things like "einsteins theories were of course flawed" ("youre going to trust GOOGLE?") and then i hear things like "you think EINSTEIN was wrong? he was frickin EINSTEIN" (paraphrasing). now, when i talk about the round earth being the only theory without gaping holes, i get sent to a page that talks about all the flaws in einsteins theory of relativity. so if it fits for you its good, but if it doesnt then its flawed, seems familiar somehow. and at the bottom with the newest post we see the FE favorite line(s) "thats just one theory/there are many interpretations". sounds like yall need to actually put some more thought into this stuff...
-
You're really bad at paraphrasing what others said. I wonder if it's just that, or if you fail to parse and interpret the language correctly in the first place.
-
And you're really bad at attempting to divert and dodge the topic...
-
And you're really bad at attempting to divert and dodge the topic...
"Dodge"? I've answered every question you had for me thus far. Whether or not you personally liked those answers is another matter entirely.
-
Who's refusing to support a claim (also obvious ClockTower is obvious)? Make a thread elsewhere. We can discuss it there. This is not a complicated idea. Now stop derailing the thread. It continues to be distasteful.
As I pointed out, Vaux makes the following unsupported, outlandish claim:
Aether is a real phenomenon that formed during the creation of the universe. If you keep refusing this simple fact (Einstien even confirmed it) then I don't believe you'll be able to progress any further with our discussions.
In particular, he fails miserably in understanding that the typical uses of the word "ether" does not match FE's ether's characteristics. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories)
There are many interpretations of aether. They are all essentially the same thing however. Aether has many functions.
So you don't know even what definition or "functions" FET uses of the "ether", and never have any data or experiments to support your outlandish claims. Figures.
-
So you don't know even what definition or "functions" FET uses of the "ether", and never have any data or experiments to support your outlandish claims. Figures.
Please make your own thread on this topic.
Thank you.
-
Since you're answering questions, why isn't there one singular unified flat earth theory? There's one singular unified round earth (not a) theory, and it does explain everything. Could you show me the best theory y'all have? Because from where I'm sitting, everyone flat earther has their own opinion and not much else.
-
So you don't know even what definition or "functions" FET uses of the "ether", and never have any data or experiments to support your outlandish claims. Figures.
Please make your own thread on this topic.
Thank you.
You opened the door. He is simply challenging you on your expertise or evidence as it pertains the claim you made.
-
Since you're answering questions, why isn't there one singular unified flat earth theory? There's one singular unified round earth (not a) theory, and it does explain everything. Could you show me the best theory y'all have? Because from where I'm sitting, everyone flat earther has their own opinion and not much else.
No. There's actually quite a long list of round Earth theories since the beginning of civilization. They can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth). As you can plainly see, your "Round Earth" theory is currently the most accepted one, but that doesn't make it correct. I'm sure Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle all believed that their round Earth theory was fundamentally sound and correct during their time, but they would be laughed out of society in our time.
You opened the door. He is simply challenging you on your expertise or evidence as it pertains the claim you made.
No. I didn't. I mentioned aether, because it exists and relates to a lot of different things in FET. If Gulliver wants to derail every thread when the word "aether" pops up then he should be banned, or at least heavily moderated. I'm tired of him missing the point.
-
You opened the door. He is simply challenging you on your expertise or evidence as it pertains the claim you made.
No. I didn't. I mentioned aether, because it exists and relates to a lot of different things in FET. If Gulliver wants to derail every thread when the word "aether" pops up then he should be banned, or at least heavily moderated. I'm tired of him missing the point.
You didn't just mention it in this thread. You made outlandish, unsupported claims about it. For example:
There are many interpretations of aether. They are all essentially the same thing however. Aether has many functions.
-
You opened the door. He is simply challenging you on your expertise or evidence as it pertains the claim you made.
No. I didn't. I mentioned aether, because it exists and relates to a lot of different things in FET. If Gulliver wants to derail every thread when the word "aether" pops up then he should be banned, or at least heavily moderated. I'm tired of him missing the point.
You didn't just mention it in this thread. You made outlandish, unsupported claims about it. For example:
There are many interpretations of aether. They are all essentially the same thing however. Aether has many functions.
I don't see how that is outlandish or unsupported.
What else would hold up the sun and moon discs? Clouds? ::)
-
You opened the door. He is simply challenging you on your expertise or evidence as it pertains the claim you made.
No. I didn't. I mentioned aether, because it exists and relates to a lot of different things in FET. If Gulliver wants to derail every thread when the word "aether" pops up then he should be banned, or at least heavily moderated. I'm tired of him missing the point.
You didn't just mention it in this thread. You made outlandish, unsupported claims about it. For example:
There are many interpretations of aether. They are all essentially the same thing however. Aether has many functions.
I don't see how that is outlandish or unsupported.
What else would hold up the sun and moon discs? Clouds? ::)
Just because ether is a convenient placeholder to deal with problems with FET does not mean that need supports your claim that ether holds up clouds, for example. Buoyancy, for example, is perfectly compatible even in FET of holding up clouds. You really failed there.
-
Just because ether is a convenient placeholder to deal with problems with FET does not mean that need supports your claim that ether holds up clouds, for example. Buoyancy, for example, is perfectly compatible even in FET of holding up clouds. You really failed there.
It's "Aether".
Ether is a completely different thing.
Please try to make an effort next time.
Any mods want to split this thread? Gulliver has successfully derailed it.
-
Just because ether is a convenient placeholder to deal with problems with FET does not mean that need supports your claim that ether holds up clouds, for example. Buoyancy, for example, is perfectly compatible even in FET of holding up clouds. You really failed there.
It's "Aether".
Ether is a completely different thing.
Please try to make an effort next time.
Any mods want to split this thread? Gulliver has successfully derailed it.
Thank you for the clarification. Would you please go a bit further to help us understand please? What is the difference between "ether" and "aether" in FET. Thanks!
Aether (or æther) is an obsolete spelling of the noun with various definitions relating to air, chemical compounds, and nonexistent clear elements filling outer space. The word is usually spelled ether in all main varieties of modern English. Aether still appears as a poetic affectation, especially in reference to the word’s ancient Greek and Latin senses, but ether is preferred by a large margin in most types of writing.
The æ in æther is a Latin-derived letter that represents different sounds in different languages (and it still appears in some modern alphabets). The letter was preserved in numerous Latin words brought to English between the 16th and 19th centuries, though later in this period æ was usually rendered ae, as it usually is today. Many of these words, like ether, have dropped the a over the last century or so, so that, for instance, encycolopaedia is now encyclopedia, anaesthesia has become anesthesia, and aeon has become eon. Some of them have dropped the a in American English but retain it elsewhere—for example, pediatric/paediatric, anemia/anaemia, and feces/faeces. Others retain the a everywhere—for example, aesthetic, aegis, and paean.
-
Ether is a highly flammable liquid.
-
Ether is a highly flammable liquid.
Yes, it is. Did you have a point though?
-
Ether is a highly flammable liquid.
Yes, it is. Did you have a point though?
You asked the differences?
-
Ether is a highly flammable liquid.
Yes, it is. Did you have a point though?
You asked the differences?
Yes, I did. Did you have a difference to share? I'd really appreciate understanding if FET uses "aether" differently than "ether"? Science doesn't.
-
Ether is a highly flammable liquid.
Yes, it is. Did you have a point though?
You asked the differences?
Yes, I did. Did you have a difference to share? I'd really appreciate understanding if FET uses "aether" differently than "ether"? Science doesn't.
Ether is a highly combustible organic compound. Aether is not.
-
Ether is a highly flammable liquid.
Yes, it is. Did you have a point though?
You asked the differences?
Yes, I did. Did you have a difference to share? I'd really appreciate understanding if FET uses "aether" differently than "ether"? Science doesn't.
Ether is a highly combustible organic compound. Aether is not.
So FET now wants to remove the archaic spelling of an organic compound? Amazing! I think you're drunk with power.
-
Ether is a highly flammable liquid.
Yes, it is. Did you have a point though?
You asked the differences?
Yes, I did. Did you have a difference to share? I'd really appreciate understanding if FET uses "aether" differently than "ether"? Science doesn't.
Ether is a highly combustible organic compound. Aether is not.
So FET now wants to remove the archaic spelling of an organic compound? Amazing! I think you're drunk with power.
No?
-
Since you're answering questions, why isn't there one singular unified flat earth theory?
Because it's a work in progress, just like everything else in science.
There's one singular unified round earth (not a) theory
I don't think you understand what scientists mean when they say "theory". Your insertion of "(not a)" makes it sound like you disagree with RET.
Also, no, there isn't one comprehensive Round Earth Theory. That's a good thing, because there shouldn't be one.
and it does explain everything
Well, I already showed you that that's untrue. Of course, no real scientist claims to have explained "everything", so I'm not holding that against RE'ers in general, but it does go a long way to show your incompetence in the subject.
-
Since you're answering questions, why isn't there one singular unified flat earth theory? There's one singular unified round earth (not a) theory, and it does explain everything. Could you show me the best theory y'all have? Because from where I'm sitting, everyone flat earther has their own opinion and not much else.
Experimental evidence has proven that the Earth is flat. This much we can be sure of. Everything else is merely speculation.
The way I look at it, we're merely demonstrating to RE'ers that the Earth can be flat. We're creating models which work according to known evidence. It doesn't matter whether or not they're accurate, because they're possible. RE'ers cannot say that a flat Earth is impossible because we can demonstrate otherwise. We have answers to all of their arguments. Meanwhile, RE'ers cannot explain the wealth of evidence demonstrating the flatness of the Earth.
Once Flat Earth Theory is more widely accepted (and that day isn't as far off as you hope), we will have the resources to go farther in finding the true model. As it stands today, creating working models is all that is necessary.
-
Experimental evidence has proven that the Earth is flat. This much we can be sure of.
Excellent for you! Would you please point to this experimental evidence? Thanks.
I suggest that you do some press releases of this amazing experimental evidence that you're sure proves that the Earth is flat.
-
The appearance of the midnight sun (and its opposite) is the result of Aetheric eyewalls, which distort and hide the sun in predictable patterns.
Experimental evidence has proven that the Earth is flat. This much we can be sure of. Everything else is merely speculation.
So which is it?
The first of your posts above makes a claim, not a speculation.
The second of your posts above says that it's not a claim, just a speculation.
In which post did you error?
-
The appearance of the midnight sun (and its opposite) is the result of Aetheric eyewalls, which distort and hide the sun in predictable patterns.
Experimental evidence has proven that the Earth is flat. This much we can be sure of. Everything else is merely speculation.
So which is it?
The first of your posts above makes a claim, not a speculation.
The second of your posts above says that it's not a claim, just a speculation.
In which post did you error?
Neither. I was asked for an answer from my model. I provided it. Please stop being so angry all the time. You're gonna have a heart attack or something.
-
The appearance of the midnight sun (and its opposite) is the result of Aetheric eyewalls, which distort and hide the sun in predictable patterns.
Experimental evidence has proven that the Earth is flat. This much we can be sure of. Everything else is merely speculation.
So which is it?
The first of your posts above makes a claim, not a speculation.
The second of your posts above says that it's not a claim, just a speculation.
In which post did you error?
Neither. I was asked for an answer from my model. I provided it. Please stop being so angry all the time. You're gonna have a heart attack or something.
I'm not the least bit angry, but thanks for the concern.
So, you are just speculating when you made your claim about the existence of the predicated effects of the Aetheric eyewalls? Really? Who asked you to even talk about your "model"? I suggest that you learn to preface your speculation with phrases like "in my proposed model" or "I speculate that". Otherwise, you're being dishonest.
Also, I'm still waiting on that pointer to the experimental data that proves that the Earth is flat. By the way, unless you're applying the ZP, as opposed to the SM, no experiment can really prove, in the strongest sense of the word, that the Earth is flat.
-
The appearance of the midnight sun (and its opposite) is the result of Aetheric eyewalls, which distort and hide the sun in predictable patterns.
Experimental evidence has proven that the Earth is flat. This much we can be sure of. Everything else is merely speculation.
So which is it?
The first of your posts above makes a claim, not a speculation.
The second of your posts above says that it's not a claim, just a speculation.
In which post did you error?
Neither. I was asked for an answer from my model. I provided it. Please stop being so angry all the time. You're gonna have a heart attack or something.
I'm not the least bit angry, but thanks for the concern.
So, you are just speculating when you made your claim about the existence of the predicated effects of the Aetheric eyewalls? Really? Who asked you to even talk about your "model"? I suggest that you learn to preface your speculation with phrases like "in my proposed model" or "I speculate that". Otherwise, you're being dishonest.
No. We aren't here to justify ourselves to you and I am not the least bit interested in doing so. You ask me to explain how a phenomenon is possible on a Flat Earth, I will tell you how it's possible. You ask me if my explanation has evidence, I will explain exactly what I just explained.
Also, I'm still waiting on that pointer to the experimental data that proves that the Earth is flat. By the way, unless you're applying the ZP, as opposed to the SM, no experiment can really prove, in the strongest sense of the word, that the Earth is flat.
Read the Wiki.
-
The appearance of the midnight sun (and its opposite) is the result of Aetheric eyewalls, which distort and hide the sun in predictable patterns.
Experimental evidence has proven that the Earth is flat. This much we can be sure of. Everything else is merely speculation.
So which is it?
The first of your posts above makes a claim, not a speculation.
The second of your posts above says that it's not a claim, just a speculation.
In which post did you error?
Neither. I was asked for an answer from my model. I provided it. Please stop being so angry all the time. You're gonna have a heart attack or something.
I'm not the least bit angry, but thanks for the concern.
So, you are just speculating when you made your claim about the existence of the predicated effects of the Aetheric eyewalls? Really? Who asked you to even talk about your "model"? I suggest that you learn to preface your speculation with phrases like "in my proposed model" or "I speculate that". Otherwise, you're being dishonest.
No. We aren't here to justify ourselves to you and I am not the least bit interested in doing so. You ask me to explain how a phenomenon is possible on a Flat Earth, I will tell you how it's possible. You ask me if my explanation has evidence, I will explain exactly what I just explained.
You're confused. No one has asked for your speculation or what's "possible". We asked what is, not what might be. If you were honest, you'd at least identify when you're just speculating.Also, I'm still waiting on that pointer to the experimental data that proves that the Earth is flat. By the way, unless you're applying the ZP, as opposed to the SM, no experiment can really prove, in the strongest sense of the word, that the Earth is flat.
Read the Wiki.
I have, and I don't see any evidence that proves what you claim. Is it so hard to point to this conclusive evidence? I guess you're just being dishonest, yet again.
-
Gulliver, I see you're employing your bully tactics again.
I would suggest ignoring him until he understands that being a manipulative asshole won't help his stunted intelligence and inability to understand even the simplest of words.
-
Gulliver, I see you're employing your bully tactics again.
I would suggest ignoring him until he understands that being a manipulative asshole won't help his stunted intelligence and inability to understand even the simplest of words.
I always know when FEers feel that they're losing the debate: When personal attacks is all the content of a response. Thanks Vaux!
-
To be fair, the experimental evidence presented in the wiki is a joke. "Is Kansas flatter than a pancake"? Really? The closest it comes to presenting a decent experiment is the BLE, which, when it was done properly, showed the Earth was round. There is some controversy in this community about that result, but none of that is actually pertaining to the set up and execution of the experiment, which we know, as a matter of record, was attested by Hampden's chosen referee as showing the Earth round. So I am not sure what experimental evidence Tausami could rely on so heavily as to discount the plethora of evidences for the Earth being round.
-
I always know when FEers feel that they're losing the debate: When personal attacks is all the content of a response. Thanks Vaux!
Are you sure you're not just projecting?
-
I always know when FEers feel that they're losing the debate: When personal attacks is all the content of a response. Thanks Vaux!
Are you sure you're not just projecting?
Both sides are good at it, retard (mirite?)
-
To be fair, the experimental evidence presented in the wiki is a joke. "Is Kansas flatter than a pancake"? Really? The closest it comes to presenting a decent experiment is the BLE, which, when it was done properly, showed the Earth was round. There is some controversy in this community about that result, but none of that is actually pertaining to the set up and execution of the experiment, which we know, as a matter of record, was attested by Hampden's chosen referee as showing the Earth round. So I am not sure what experimental evidence Tausami could rely on so heavily as to discount the plethora of evidences for the Earth being round.
Sorry, but I just have to commend RS here. I've always loved the Kansas article for FES's stupidity for including it as evidence of FET. The study uses the USGS markers that calculate the distance of the point (on the surface) to the center of the Earth, which of course relies on the round shape of the Earth. Of course, even if an entire state were flat in the FET sense, it would hardly be evidence about the shape of the entire Earth. (Since an elephant's foot's bottom is flat, the elephant must be flat.) Good job, RS.
-
I always know when FEers feel that they're losing the debate: When personal attacks is all the content of a response. Thanks Vaux!
Are you sure you're not just projecting?
Both sides are good at it, retard (mirite?)
And how! Uh... you... you big fat ugly meanie, you.
-
Experimental evidence has proven that the Earth is flat. This much we can be sure of. Everything else is merely speculation.
Just out of curiosity, how much of this experimental evidence (water convexity experiments, stc.) that you're so sure of relies on physical properties that you're not so sure of (bendy light, aether, etc.)?
-
Experimental evidence has proven that the Earth is flat. This much we can be sure of. Everything else is merely speculation.
Just out of curiosity, how much of this experimental evidence (water convexity experiments, stc.) that you're so sure of relies on physical properties that you're not so sure of (bendy light, aether, etc.)?
Are you suggesting that the FE interpretation of Bedford relies on EA? Because from what I understand it's the RET explanation for Bedford that relies on magical bendy light.
-
Experimental evidence has proven that the Earth is flat. This much we can be sure of. Everything else is merely speculation.
Just out of curiosity, how much of this experimental evidence (water convexity experiments, stc.) that you're so sure of relies on physical properties that you're not so sure of (bendy light, aether, etc.)?
Are you suggesting that the FE interpretation of Bedford relies on EA? Because from what I understand it's the RET explanation for Bedford that relies on magical bendy light.
Refraction is magical?
-
Experimental evidence has proven that the Earth is flat. This much we can be sure of. Everything else is merely speculation.
Just out of curiosity, how much of this experimental evidence (water convexity experiments, stc.) that you're so sure of relies on physical properties that you're not so sure of (bendy light, aether, etc.)?
Are you suggesting that the FE interpretation of Bedford relies on EA? Because from what I understand it's the RET explanation for Bedford that relies on magical bendy light.
Refraction is magical?
So is gravity. Are you a wizard or something?
-
Experimental evidence has proven that the Earth is flat. This much we can be sure of. Everything else is merely speculation.
Just out of curiosity, how much of this experimental evidence (water convexity experiments, stc.) that you're so sure of relies on physical properties that you're not so sure of (bendy light, aether, etc.)?
Are you suggesting that the FE interpretation of Bedford relies on EA? Because from what I understand it's the RET explanation for Bedford that relies on magical bendy light.
Refraction is magical?
So is gravity. Are you a wizard or something?
What are you talking about?
-
Experimental evidence has proven that the Earth is flat. This much we can be sure of. Everything else is merely speculation.
Just out of curiosity, how much of this experimental evidence (water convexity experiments, stc.) that you're so sure of relies on physical properties that you're not so sure of (bendy light, aether, etc.)?
Are you suggesting that the FE interpretation of Bedford relies on EA? Because from what I understand it's the RET explanation for Bedford that relies on magical bendy light.
Refraction is magical?
So is gravity. Are you a wizard or something?
What are you talking about?
I thought we were talking about magic?
-
I wasn't. What are you talking about?
-
I wasn't. What are you talking about?
Magical things, like refraction and gravity. Maybe we would also talk about other magical things, like dark matter and dark energy? Maybe even the big bang?
-
I wasn't. What are you talking about?
Magical things, like refraction and gravity. Maybe we would also talk about other magical things, like dark matter and dark energy? Maybe even the big bang?
Even though I think it is demented, I get why FEers occasionally deride gravity as "magical" but what is your issue with refraction?
-
I don't have an issue with refraction. You are the one who mentioned that refraction is magical.
-
I don't have an issue with refraction. You are the one who mentioned that refraction is magical.
¿Do you only understand question marks if there is also an inverted one at the start of the sentence?
And actually, it was Tausami who mentioned magical refraction. Keep up please. No more bourbon for 3 hours.
-
I don't have an issue with refraction. You are the one who mentioned that refraction is magical.
¿Do you only understand question marks if there is also an inverted one at the start of the sentence?
¿Que?
-
I don't have an issue with refraction. You are the one who mentioned that refraction is magical.
¿Do you only understand question marks if there is also an inverted one at the start of the sentence?
¿Que?
¡That's what she said!
-
Experimental evidence has proven that the Earth is flat. This much we can be sure of. Everything else is merely speculation.
Just out of curiosity, how much of this experimental evidence (water convexity experiments, stc.) that you're so sure of relies on physical properties that you're not so sure of (bendy light, aether, etc.)?
Are you suggesting that the FE interpretation of Bedford relies on EA?
No, I'm suggesting that EA conflicts with the FE interpretation of Bedford.
Because from what I understand it's the RET explanation for Bedford that relies on magical bendy light.
Then you understand wrong. Refraction is a likely explanation for the BLE, but refraction is far from magical and not at all the same as bendy light (EA). Among other things, EA bends light the opposite way that refraction does.