FET's Credit Score
« on: December 11, 2017, 10:36:21 PM »
Most people understand how a credit score works. Your credit score determines how much debt banks think you're good for. You build up a good credit score by borrowing responsibly and making the payments. I think this concept extends usefully to theories, including FET.

Quote
As pointed out by Tom before, the evidence for the shadow object is the lunar eclipse. There has to be something blocking the light of the sun, and since it can't be the Earth or any of the planets, there must be something else up there that has never been seen doing it. Ergo, shadow object and evidence for said object.

This quote from another thread bothered me when I read it, and the concept of a credit score helps me articulate why.

The lunar eclipse is not evidence of a Shadow Object. Rather, FET requires one. It has borrowed one - or to put it another way, it owes us a Shadow Object. Until we verify its existence, FET is in debt.

In much the same way, gravitational theory diverged from observation to the tune of one Neptune, and later a Pluto. But it already had a good credit rating and paid its debts once more: we found those planets. For these reasons and the many other useful and accurate predictions it has made, gravitational theory has built up a AAA rating.

FET, by way of contrast, has zero credit rating. It has achieved nothing useful. All it does is borrow. It owes us a Shadow Object, it owes us perspective that pinches things flat within a few miles but allows the sun and moon to double their thousands-of-miles distance from us without changing size at all. It owes us a moon where the bright half points north. It owes us something the earth rests upon that's accelerating upwards. Its ledger is nothing but red. Nothing required by FET has any independent verification.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: FET's Credit Score
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2017, 10:51:18 PM »
The majority of a consumer credit score (in the US) is based on revolving debt to credit ratio.

I’d also suggest looking up what an analogy is and what a false equivalence is.

*

Offline gizmo910

  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Si vis pacem, para bellum
    • View Profile
Re: FET's Credit Score
« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2017, 11:13:16 PM »
The majority of a consumer credit score (in the US) is based on revolving debt to credit ratio.

I’d also suggest looking up what an analogy is and what a false equivalence is.

(Is knowing all the types of fallacies a prerequisite for membership to TFES?)

The argument may not be an exact analogy, but it does present a scoring system of sorts.
Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe.

“When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

;)

devils advocate

Re: FET's Credit Score
« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2017, 11:13:32 PM »


I’d also suggest looking up what an analogy is and what a false equivalence is.

Watcha Junker

in what way do you not get the analogy here? Its a pretty awesome one.

 FE needs:

UA, shadow objects, long term world wide conspiracy, new cosmology, new laws of perspective, celestial gravitation to name but a few

Where is the proof of these?

There is none, therefore FE is in debt of proof. Research RE and you'll see a lot of proof for a globe earth. No debt.

*

Offline gizmo910

  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Si vis pacem, para bellum
    • View Profile
Re: FET's Credit Score
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2017, 11:21:09 PM »


I’d also suggest looking up what an analogy is and what a false equivalence is.

Watcha Junker

in what way do you not get the analogy here? Its a pretty awesome one.

 FE needs:

UA, shadow objects, long term world wide conspiracy, new cosmology, new laws of perspective, celestial gravitation to name but a few

Where is the proof of these?

There is none, therefore FE is in debt of proof. Research RE and you'll see a lot of proof for a globe earth. No debt.

Don't forget a working map, along with a way to reference points of the plane Earth without using round Earth coordinates.

On the other hand, RE does not provide a solid answer for gravity... anything else?
Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe.

“When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

;)

devils advocate

Re: FET's Credit Score
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2017, 11:32:04 PM »
At least when I jump out of a plane my stomach tells me I am moving not the earth rising up to meet me.....empirical!

*

Offline gizmo910

  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Si vis pacem, para bellum
    • View Profile
Re: FET's Credit Score
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2017, 11:34:12 PM »
At least when I jump out of a plane my stomach tells me I am moving not the earth rising up to meet me.....empirical!

Though, it could be explained by the "mysterious" UA causing air pressure to act against your body, causing uneasiness.

Further, "empirical" evidence is quite sub-standard to proper "scientific" evidence.

One cannot easily empirically disprove the following statement:

All ravens are black, therefore all non-black things are not ravens.
(FYI Albino ravens exist ("scientifically"))
« Last Edit: December 11, 2017, 11:36:10 PM by gizmo910 »
Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe.

“When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

;)

devils advocate

Re: FET's Credit Score
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2017, 11:41:03 PM »
Is that how UA works?! I was searching for a peer reviewed explanation but.......

Re: FET's Credit Score
« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2017, 12:38:17 AM »
The majority of a consumer credit score (in the US) is based on revolving debt to credit ratio.

I’d also suggest looking up what an analogy is and what a false equivalence is.

Well, in simple terms, here in the UK you build up creditworthiness by borrowing and repaying. I struggled to get a mortgage when I first wanted to buy a house, even though I'd always been in credit and with a decent job, purely because I hadn't borrowed money before.

As for the latter:

Banks on the whole lend more readily to those with a history of borrowing and repaying than to those who never borrow at all, and much more than to those with who have already borrowed without repayment.

We lend much more credence to the as-yet unfulfilled predictions of a theory if it has made predictions that have borne fruit in the past. We point our telescopes where it directs, and expect to see something.

If a theory has never made useful predictions before, we are more cautious.

If a theory has produced nothing useful, made a string of unfulfilled prophecies, and demands - with no justification other than it's necessary for the theory to be correct - profound discontinuities, modifications or exemptions from well-tested rules and principles... why should we lend it any credence at all?

Sorry; I'm not seeing the false equivalence here. Seems like a decent analogy to me.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FET's Credit Score
« Reply #9 on: December 12, 2017, 01:48:51 AM »
The existence of a Shadow Object is empirically observed. We see a shadow, therefore there is an object to cause it. The existence of the Shadow Object is a certainty. It is the nature of this object that is in question. Our Wiki correctly asserts that the Shadow Object could be a number of possible objects, including an unknown satellite of the sun on the day side of the earth, and makes no definite claim.

There is no indication that this Shadow Object is the earth itself, and the Round Earth Theory has not provided evidence to show that it is. In fact, RET astronomers cannot even calculate the timing of the Lunar Eclipse with geometric models and must use the ancient pattern-based Saros cycle in eclipse predictions.

Per the effect that stops the sun from shrinking, this effect has been documented with several examples which directly shows the effect in action. There is an effect in nature, which is observed to cause light sources in the far field to be consistent in size.

The Universal Accelerator is also empirically derived. When we step off of a chair and watch the surface of the earth carefully we can see the mechanism of an upwardly moving earth. We see that the earth moves upwards. A mechanism is directly observed, in contradiction to the mechanisms of "bendy space" and "puller particle" which have never been observed.

Nothing is "in the red". Our determinations are weighed logically and appropriately, based on actual observations. When we consider the evidence that exists, not the evidence that we assume exists, like the OP who is implicitly guilty of assuming but not showing, it comes out in favor of the Flat Earth Theory. The Round Earth Theory actually has very little real evidence for its assertions, and this becomes apparent to the budding planeist when one debates these subjects at length.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2017, 02:21:09 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: FET's Credit Score
« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2017, 04:46:34 AM »

There is no indication that this Shadow Object is the earth itself, and the Round Earth Theory has not provided evidence to show that it is. In fact, RET astronomers cannot even calculate the timing of the Lunar Eclipse with geometric models and must use the ancient pattern-based Saros cycle in eclipse predictions.

To be fair, the last time we talked about this you asserted that light should come out of a transparent medium like the air at the same angle it went in at, and that science has no explanation for how sunlight could be bent by the atmosphere. You made this statement while your profile picture shows you wearing glasses, which are applied versions of the well trod science of optics.

Here are some observations as well:
- The lunar eclipse only occurs during the full moon. Why?
- The lunar eclipse only occurs when the moon is at the opposite point in the sky to the sun. I don't just mean that it's the full moon (i.e. at exact opposite right ascension), I mean that it's exactly opposite as in exact opposite right ascension and azimuth as well.
- The Saros cycle predicts not just eclipses of the moon, but also of the sun. Why would the same cycle work to predict both if one is caused by the shadow of the moon on the earth, and the other is not caused by the shadow of the earth on the moon?

EDIT TO ADD:
PREDICTING ECLIPSES
Furthermore, the Saros cycle is time bounded. You can only predict other items in the saros cycle once a cycle has begun.

How is it possible to predict eclipses for saros cycles where all the eclipses are in the future?
https://eclipses.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros164.html

These are predicted by mathematical predictions that are fine tuned by observation, so it seems unfair to say we can't predict eclipses other than by Saros.
Once we've predicted the first one, then sure, you can extrapolate the rest of the saros. But for the first one, how is that dependent on saros pattern matching?

Here's the model used to find coordinates of the planets (and thus the sun)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSOP_(planets)

And here's the model used to find the coordinates of the moon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeride_Lunaire_Parisienne
You put them together and when the coordinates line up you predict an eclipse.

I PREDICT YOU OBJECT, and proactively respond
The first eclipse in that saros is in the year 2098, so I predict that you will say this prediction is useless until we live to 2098 and observe if the prediction is true or not.

So, I will take you back in time:
In 2009, www.archive.org captured a snapshot of a different saros series:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090723134442/https://eclipses.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros156.html
The first eclipse in that saros series was predicted for 2011 Jul 01.

That eclipse was then observed as predicted. Sadly, you won't accept the observation as it was from a satellite, so we'll have to wait like 300 years for one of the items in this saros to be observed to your satisfaction, I suppose.
http://proba2.oma.be/swap/data/mpg/movies/campaign_movies/20110701_eclipse/


« Last Edit: December 12, 2017, 05:21:28 AM by douglips »

Re: FET's Credit Score
« Reply #11 on: December 12, 2017, 06:56:21 AM »
I'll dig up links tomorrow, but I would also point out the eclipse predictions on NASA's website are created based on mathematical models. The page itself lists this information. I'll grab the page link and an image tomorrow unless someone cares to find the information in my post history before I get to it. As I recall Tom never deigned to answer last I pointed this out. Shall we try again in round 2?

I'll have more tomorrow, just not tying paragraphs while on my phone.

Re: FET's Credit Score
« Reply #12 on: December 12, 2017, 10:29:21 AM »
The existence of a Shadow Object is empirically observed. We see a shadow, therefore there is an object to cause it. The existence of the Shadow Object is a certainty.

Technically, we see a change in the quantity and spectrum of light reflected from the moon. A sweeping change in its surface albedo would achieve the same effect. Hey - it's a theory, and we see it happen, so it must be evidence, right?

In any case, according to your wiki the Shadow Object is definitely not the earth. There is no independent verification that such an object exists. Your wiki comes up with (unconvincing) excuses* as to why that might be but that doesn't really matter: as things stand, FET owes us a Shadow Object.

Quote
There is no indication that this Shadow Object is the earth itself, and the Round Earth Theory has not provided evidence to show that it is.

Hang a ping-pong ball from the ceiling in a room with a bare bulb (ideally a dimmable one to reduce bounce-back of light from the walls). Now position your head so that you can see a 'full moon'. Observe that when you do this your head tends to get in the way and cast a shadow on the ball. Note how similar the effect is to a real eclipse. This is RET (sort of; the relative sizes and distances are way out, which is why it's easy to see full moons and eclipses are relatively rare)

Now stand directly beneath the ball and look up. Note that you don't see a 'full moon'. Get someone else to move something between the bulb and the moon to simulate a 'shadow object' eclipse. Observe that it looks absolutely nothing like a real eclipse. This is FET.

For bonus points, move the ping-pong ball around in a small circle (Small compared to its distance from the light). Stays about the same brightness, doesn't it? That's RET. Now move it in a large circle that brings it considerably closer to and further away from the sun. Changes in brightness a lot, doesn't it? That's FET - and it doesn't happen in real life.

For bonus bonus points, stand under the ball and then walk around in a circle centered midway between bulb and ball, so that you alternately pass beneath the ball and the bulb. This simulates the orbits of moon and sun in FET for someone at the equator on a night when the moon is full. Keep your eyes on the ball. Notice how profoundly the 'phase of the moon' changes over the course of one 'night' (doesn't happen IRL), including a half-moon pointing 'north' (doesn't happen IRL either).

For bonus bonus bonus points, draw some craters on the ball and repeat the above experiment. Notice how you can see very different craters at different times (sometimes the 'front' facing the sun, sometimes the sides, sometimes the underneath) as you observe the ball from different angles (doesn't happen IRL) unless you get a friend to deliberately tilt and turn the ball to keep it pointing at you.

For bonus bonus bonus bonus points, get a second friend to follow you around the circle 180 degrees out of phase and confirm that when the first friend tries to keep the moon pointing at you, it gyrates wildly from his perspective (doesn't happen IRL)

Quote
Per the effect that stops the sun from shrinking, this effect has been documented with several examples which directly shows the effect in action. There is an effect in nature, which is observed to cause light sources in the far field to be consistent in size.

Hey, now I get to use the term 'false equivalence'! Cool.

On a clear day the sun maintains a sharp, crisp outline pretty much all the way from horizon to horizon, during which time, according to FET, it can easily halve and then redouble its distance to an observer. This is completely uncharacteristic of the effects of diffusion upon a receding object, which manifest first as a soft-edged glow around a light source that still has a (visibly shrinking) distinct edge, strengthening until the light-source is reduced to an indistinct, soft-edged featureless blob. By way of contrast, it is possible to observe sun-spots at any time of the day; if the sun retained its visual size by getting blurrier, this would be impossible.

Also, the moon remains crisp and sharp and detailed and the same visual size from horizon to horizon on clear nights, while (according to FET) it halves and then redoubles its distance from us. Not possible to explain away with diffusion.

So no; sorry: FET still owes us weird distortions and discontinuities of perspective.

Quote
The Universal Accelerator is also empirically derived. When we step off of a chair and watch the surface of the earth carefully we can see the mechanism of an upwardly moving earth. We see that the earth moves upwards. A mechanism is directly observed, in contradiction to the mechanisms of "bendy space" and "puller particle" which have never been observed.

We've already been over this.

1. You agreed that my alternative interpretation (I see myself fall) is equivalent.
2. We can't see UA, or 'the' UA. All of the matter we can inspect has weight, therefore, all of the matter we can inspect is not itself subject to UA (not upward UA, anyway). Your interpretation requires a layer of 'special matter', which we've never seen, uniquely subject to an unknown force (that we've never seen either) and lifting everything else with it. Ergo, we have never seen 'the mechanism' of UA. FET owes us that layer.
3. Meanwhile, FET also requires CG to influence terrestrial matter in order to explain observed variations in measurements of UA. How does it work? Bendy space? Puller particles? Doesn't matter, right? We observe its effects, so some mechanism must be there. RET asks for no more than FET here - less, in fact, because FET requires a second kind of 'special matter' to exert CG - something else it owes us. Mote and plank, sir; mote and plank.
4. You've specifically said the distribution of sources of CG is unknown. Therefore, you can't even claim to know in what proportions and directions UA and CG are acting upon any given object. For all you know, the UA part could be zero. Or downward, counteracting excess CG! Right? To claim otherwise is to make a definite statement about the distribution of CG.

To summarise, FET is in the hole to the tune of:

1 x Shadow Object (not the earth).
1 x justification for the phases and appearance of the moon looking nothing like FET predicts
1 x weird discontinuous perspective that first pinches things to nothing in a finite distance and then scales them back up to a fixed visual size.
1 x justification for the (indeterminate) value of UA not being zero
2 x types of special matter, one lifting everything else and the other exerting CG.
plus a bunch of conspiracies and a weird correlation between interest in astronomy and being shit at maths.

And to reiterate: when I say 'owes us', I mean 'these are things FET obliges us to believe in that are not independently verified or which violate well-established, tried-and-tested principles.'


*Unconvincing excuses for the shadow object not being visible:

"It's too close; the sun washes it out" - we can see Mercury and Venus transit the sun. At its brightest, we can see Venus in full daylight. With a telescope, you can even see Jupiter in the daytime (done it myself). Moreover, a 5-10 mile object passing 'close' in front of a ~30 mile wide lightsource would, from the perspective of something thousands of miles away, block no more than 12% of the light; a barely perceptible dimming. The 'puppet-show hand' analogy is another false equivalence unless (as you say in another thread) light only leaves the sun's surface at 90 degrees. Which it clearly doesn't because, y'know, we can see it not doing that.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2017, 09:25:56 PM by JocelynSachs »

Re: FET's Credit Score
« Reply #13 on: December 12, 2017, 02:09:52 PM »
The existence of a Shadow Object is empirically observed. We see a shadow, therefore there is an object to cause it. The existence of the Shadow Object is a certainty. It is the nature of this object that is in question. Our Wiki correctly asserts that the Shadow Object could be a number of possible objects, including an unknown satellite of the sun on the day side of the earth, and makes no definite claim.

There is no indication that this Shadow Object is the earth itself, and the Round Earth Theory has not provided evidence to show that it is. In fact, RET astronomers cannot even calculate the timing of the Lunar Eclipse with geometric models and must use the ancient pattern-based Saros cycle in eclipse predictions.
Jocelyn covered part of this, but I would also point out you are completely incorrect on them not using geometric models. Both solar and lunar eclipses are predicted using models developed in the last 40 years. If I can direct your attention to the bottom of this page, under predictions. Snipped and posted below for your convenience.



I don't know about you, but I see no mention of Saros Cycles being used for modern day eclipse predictions.

The Universal Accelerator is also empirically derived. When we step off of a chair and watch the surface of the earth carefully we can see the mechanism of an upwardly moving earth. We see that the earth moves upwards. A mechanism is directly observed, in contradiction to the mechanisms of "bendy space" and "puller particle" which have never been observed.
As I mentioned in another thread, you are assuming here. Why can't it be air pressure? That's directly observed and recorded. There have been many proponents for Aether over the years, why not that? This isn't strictly UA vs. Gravity, this is UA vs all other options. Your 'evidence' for UA works as well for every single other option that has been presented.

Nothing is "in the red". Our determinations are weighed logically and appropriately, based on actual observations. When we consider the evidence that exists, not the evidence that we assume exists, like the OP who is implicitly guilty of assuming but not showing, it comes out in favor of the Flat Earth Theory. The Round Earth Theory actually has very little real evidence for its assertions, and this becomes apparent to the budding planeist when one debates these subjects at length.
Once again I'm forced to call out that you demand a very different standard of evidence. "When I step off a chair, the Earth comes to me" isn't very rigorous. Meanwhile you reject any observations for sunrise/set or similar no matter how many people present their personal observations to you. Define Tom. What exactly do you require to consider something as evidence? You've dance around this issue for months. Far as I can tell anything that refutes FE cannot be considered evidence. I mean, your own wiki states it has to be fabricated if it does, so that's not surprising. Do you stand by your wiki, or do you stand by some kind of integrity to accept any evidence presented? If the latter, what are your requirements for said evidence?

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: FET's Credit Score
« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2017, 02:46:05 PM »
Tom, you should quit trying to sell the falsehood that NASA has only the Saros Cycle in their eclipse prediction tool kit.  If you read NASA’s page about eclipses and the Saros Cycle, you find there is a lot more going on that merely counting the days from one eclipse in a given Saros cycle to the next.  There is mention of ascending and descending nodes, whether the umbra is passing below the earth, crossing the earth, or passing above the earth, ellipticity of orbits giving different numbers of eclipses for different Saros cycles (all of the above being completely meaningless on a flat earth) plus the distance between moon and earth; all of this requires a whole lot more than just counting the days as the Babylonians would have done.


Let’s look at the data for all 19th, 20th, and 21st century eclipses in the Saros cycle containing the recent August 2017 eclipse.  Here is that data:



Notice the 4th column, which gives the difference between consecutive eclipses in this Saros cycle.  If NASA were truly calculating it by simply adding 8 years, 11 days, and 8 hours, then that column would all have the same number in it.  The reason it does not: the Saros cycle is a convenient way to categorize eclipses and to estimate their timing.  To get timing accurate to the second, and a corresponding geographic accuracy, one must calculate by understanding the orbital ephemeris of the bodies involved.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Offline rgr331

  • *
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Re: FET's Credit Score
« Reply #15 on: December 13, 2017, 08:20:30 AM »
The existence of a Shadow Object is empirically observed. We see a shadow, therefore there is an object to cause it. The existence of the Shadow Object is a certainty. It is the nature of this object that is in question. Our Wiki correctly asserts that the Shadow Object could be a number of possible objects, including an unknown satellite of the sun on the day side of the earth, and makes no definite claim.

Here is a definite claim.  Shadow Object = Earth

Quote
There is no indication that this Shadow Object is the earth itself, and the Round Earth Theory has not provided evidence to show that it is. In fact, RET astronomers cannot even calculate the timing of the Lunar Eclipse with geometric models and must use the ancient pattern-based Saros cycle in eclipse predictions.

which is because geometry doesn’t have a time variable. The change in the geometry between multiple moving objects does have a time variable, and that principal has been used to correctly predict the location of every known object in the Milkey Way relative to the earth for the last 100 years.  ( I would say 1000 years if you were willing to give me +/- a few seconds).

Quote
Per the effect that stops the sun from shrinking, this effect has been documented with several examples which directly shows the effect in action. There is an effect in nature, which is observed to cause light sources in the far field to be consistent in size.

There is only 1 light source that is our sun’s distance (in magnitude) from earth.  that light source is our sun.  The next closest light source is 360,411 times further away.  so where is your far field?  Our Sun or our stars?

Quote
The Universal Accelerator is also empirically derived. When we step off of a chair and watch the surface of the earth carefully we can see the mechanism of an upwardly moving earth. We see that the earth moves upwards. A mechanism is directly observed, in contradiction to the mechanisms of "bendy space" and "puller particle" which have never been observed.

No, you do not see the earth move upward.  you see what appears to be a tiny little piece of ground visible to you at the time move upward.  a person observing from one of your “far fields” would see a human moving downward toward earth.

Quote
Nothing is "in the red". Our determinations are weighed logically and appropriately, based on actual observations. When we consider the evidence that exists, not the evidence that we assume exists, like the OP who is implicitly guilty of assuming but not showing, it comes out in favor of the Flat Earth Theory. The Round Earth Theory actually has very little real evidence for its assertions, and this becomes apparent to the budding planeist when one debates these subjects at length.

Tell you what, I invite you to use a weather balloon and yourself to get some “actual observations”. If you can post a picture from 100,000 feet or higher that showers a flat earth, then I won’t even accuse you of using photoshop.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2017, 08:29:09 AM by rgr331 »

Offline ShowmetheProof

  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • We are fellow scientists, and should act as such.
    • View Profile
Re: FET's Credit Score
« Reply #16 on: December 13, 2017, 02:49:20 PM »
I would like to again bring credit score to the spotlight.  I like that scoring system.  When someone created the EmDrive, which breaks the laws of the conservation of energy, they owed reproducible results.  They were reproduced, and now are in not nearly as much doubt.  The round earth theory has been reproduced, by many scientists, while the FE has shown little proof, but if shown proof, many would doubt it less.   

*

Offline Tom Haws

  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Not Flat, Round, Ellipsoid, or Geoid. Just Earth.
    • View Profile
    • Tom Haws Interesting Random Discoveries
Re: FET's Credit Score
« Reply #17 on: December 13, 2017, 03:23:07 PM »
That's not a bad explanation. If the average Joe could see anything that appeared like anything other than the sun and moon rising and setting every day of their lives, Flat Earth would be a lot easier to sell. But it's not making those deposits. It's asking for a lot without giving.
Civil Engineer (professional mapper)

Thanks to Tom Bishop for his courtesy.

No flat map can predict commercial airline flight times among New York, Paris, Cape Town, & Buenos Aires.

The FAQ Sun animation does not work with sundials. And it has the equinox sun set toward Seattle (well N of NW) at my house in Mesa, AZ.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: FET's Credit Score
« Reply #18 on: December 13, 2017, 03:27:35 PM »
At least when I jump out of a plane my stomach tells me I am moving not the earth rising up to meet me.....empirical!

Not true, jumping out of a plane does not cause that falling stomach thing.  Out of a balloon or a hovering helicopter yes.
Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

devils advocate

Re: FET's Credit Score
« Reply #19 on: December 13, 2017, 03:49:42 PM »
At least when I jump out of a plane my stomach tells me I am moving not the earth rising up to meet me.....empirical!

Not true, jumping out of a plane does not cause that falling stomach thing.  Out of a balloon or a hovering helicopter yes.

I assure you MY stomach feels something. Never done the balloon or helicopter though.