9641

Flat Earth Community / Re: Zetetic Council Election Thread.

« on: December 19, 2013, 06:20:48 AM »

There was a thread on what the Zetetic Council is:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=850.0

Ok, so to set up a Zetetic Council, we don't really need a lot from the administrators. Literally just a forum we can post into. We'd also need an agreement from the administrators that any vote from the council that is passed is binding and that they will endevour to do whatever they can to make it possible whether they agree with it or not. The Zetetic Council should have absolute power. Not Parsifal and PizzaPlanet. That's kind of weird and frankly could be destabalising.

Rules - cos we all like rules.

Ideas will be put into the new forum and discussed by those in the council.
Votes will be publically cast for transparency.
A resolution needs 50% or more the votes in order to be passed.
Nothing can be voted on twice in the same month. Saves repeated lobbying.
Any member of the council that isn't voting regulalry can be dropped from the council as this will prevent making 50%. This is no big deal, they can always be added again if they start posting again.
It isn't to become a clique like the old beliebers club was. If you stop posting, you are off the council until you return. We don't want it just the same 10 people from now until forever. That is irritating.
The forum for discussion should be public, but only accessible to the members of the council.
Being a flat earther is not a pre-requisite. Just a hardcore member of the forum with the society's best interests at heart. 

Ok, what do people think?

I'd expect the council to be voting mostly on matters of FET and how to promote it. Whther to appoint presidents, have memberships, what goes into a goodie bag, should we contact such and such a media outlet, who should respond to whatever event, - that kind of thing.
I wouldn't expect too many votes for technical stuff, because frankly our technical team know better than we do. But the council's vote has to be binding, otherwise there is no point in the council.

Is this something people are interested in?
Do the administrators agree to this?

Other suggestions welcome.

9642

Flat Earth Community / Re: Zetetic Council Election Thread.

« on: December 19, 2013, 02:15:15 AM »

I accept the position.

9643

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 18, 2013, 10:13:24 PM »

Consider the statement: "The ancient Egyptians did not watch Seinfeld"

This is a negative claim. Is the burden of proof on the person claiming that the ancient Egyptions did not watch Seinfeld, or is the burden of proof on those claiming that they did watch Seinfeld?

9644

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 18, 2013, 10:00:12 PM »

So you are saying that if it is not on wikipedia it does not exist?

Burden of proof is on the claimant.

You are the one who claims that GOCE never corroborated their data with any ground-based source.  Now you can either show that explicitly to be true, or you can maintain your current position, which is that you did not find it on the wikipedia page.  Either is fine, except the latter position is fallacious.

A third option is to make an inductive argument, but you are a long way from that as well.

An expression of skepticism is not a positive claim.

No an expression of skepticism is not.  However, you do claim to know something here

I know that earth based gravimeters have not been used to verify satellite based measurements because no such trials have been associated with the data.

Which when asked to supply your source of this claim, you failed to do so.  Instead you then shifted, and essentially, said "prove me wrong".  Sorry, you need to prove yourself right.

I looked at the material and saw no such associated trials. Therefore the trials do not exist until they have been found to exist.

Similarly, I looked in my closet and saw that no ghosts exist in there. The conclusion, necessarily, is that no ghosts exist in my closet.

Claiming that 'it does not exist' is a negative claim, and does not need to be proven. It is that which must be assumed before all else.

9645

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 18, 2013, 09:49:01 PM »

So you are saying that if it is not on wikipedia it does not exist?

Burden of proof is on the claimant.

You are the one who claims that GOCE never corroborated their data with any ground-based source.  Now you can either show that explicitly to be true, or you can maintain your current position, which is that you did not find it on the wikipedia page.  Either is fine, except the latter position is fallacious.

A third option is to make an inductive argument, but you are a long way from that as well.

An expression of skepticism is a negative claim, not a positive claim. The burden of proof is on those with the positive claims.

"There is no evidence of ghosts" is an expression of skepticism, and is a negative claim. The burden of proof, consequentially, is on the people claiming the existence of ghosts.

9646

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 18, 2013, 09:48:09 PM »

Again, how do you know that no controls were used?

Because none were claimed.

Did the reading material have a detailed schematic of the probe?

If you assert that magnetic fields have been taken into consideration, then you should post your findings here for all to see.

Is there supposed to be a link there?  If so, then I'm not seeing it.

I posted evidence of its nonexistence.

9647

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 18, 2013, 09:01:37 PM »

So you are saying that if it is not on wikipedia it does not exist?

Burden of proof is on the claimant.

Also: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Says who? People who believe in spirituality, ghosts, and ESP?

9648

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 18, 2013, 07:07:07 PM »

Seriously?  You are basing your claim that there is no corroboration on a Wikipedia entry?  That is a terrible source if you are expecting completeness.

If it exists, then find it for us. I've already provided evidence that it does not exist.

What?  No you haven't. You linked to a Wikipedia page, and pretended that was an exhaustive source.

Here, I'll post evidence of its nonexistence again:

9649

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 18, 2013, 05:21:20 PM »

Seriously?  You are basing your claim that there is no corroboration on a Wikipedia entry?  That is a terrible source if you are expecting completeness.

If it exists, then find it for us. I've already provided evidence that it does not exist.

9650

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 18, 2013, 04:46:52 PM »

Oh?  What's the control in that experiment?

None. It's an uncontrolled experiment.

So now you're saying that not all experiments need controls?  Make up your mind, will you?

It needs controls if you plan to pass it off as a valid scientific experiment.

2. Everything is magnetic to some degree. Especially the metal components gravimeters.

What makes you think that magnetic fields, plus any number of other potential sources of error, haven't been taken into consideration?

Because no such claims have been made in the reading material.

So you're saying that gravitational measurements of various parts of the earth have never been performed before those satellite surveys?  How do you know that earth based gravimeters weren't used to verify satellite based measurements?  What makes you think that magnetic fields would have any effect on the gravity measurements?

1. I know that earth based gravimeters have not been used to verify satellite based measurements because no such trials have been associated with the data.

Would you care to cite this data that you are referring to?

Sure, here is the evidence that no such trials have been associated with the measurements:

9651

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 18, 2013, 03:59:38 AM »

Oh?  What's the control in that experiment?

None. It's an uncontrolled experiment.

So you're saying that gravitational measurements of various parts of the earth have never been performed before those satellite surveys?  How do you know that earth based gravimeters weren't used to verify satellite based measurements?  What makes you think that magnetic fields would have any effect on the gravity measurements?

1. I know that earth based gravimeters have not been used to verify satellite based measurements because no such trials have been associated with the data.

2. Everything is magnetic to some degree. Especially metal components in gravimeters.

9652

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 18, 2013, 02:50:25 AM »

The gnome experiment is not a controlled trial. It is not being conducted in a lab, but being sent from person to person via post mail.

from what I understand they were going to do it in a lab but they couldn't get the whole earth through the doors.

If there are no controls to the experiment, it's not proper science.

9653

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 18, 2013, 02:49:16 AM »

All measurements are experiments.

  They are?  What experiment are you performing when you step on a bathroom scale?

When you step on a scale you are conducting an experiment to test your own weight. An experiment is any procedure meant to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact.

What the hell are you talking about?  Do you even know what protocols were used in those gravity measurements?  What sort of controls would you propose for gravity measurement from orbit and how do you know that they weren't used?

I've read all about the gravity space experiments. No controls were used what-so-ever. The data could have been controlled by repeating the experiment numerous times with different kinds of gravimeters, to see if the results changed over time or from device to device. Both land and space and land measurements could have been taken simultaneously to ensure a proper reading. Instruments used to test the strength of the earth's magnetic field could have been included in the system.

9654

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 17, 2013, 05:31:09 PM »

These alleged gravity space missions were not controlled, either.

Please elaborate.  What do you mean by "not controlled"?

Do you know what a controlled experiment is?

The gravity space missions aren't experiments, they're measurements.  Do you know what a measurement is?

All measurements are experiments. The gravity space missions were uncontrolled. It does not conform to the scientific method, which demands that trials are controlled. Trying to pass off something uncontrolled and unscientific as scientific is reprehensible. I would suggest that you and the 'scientists' at NASA go back to middle school and learn some science.

9655

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 17, 2013, 05:18:04 PM »

I did not say pressure was the same anywhere. That is a gross misreading. Atmospheric pressure is controlled in the gnome experiment by zeroing the balance. So unless the pressure suddenly changes on one side of the balance it does not affect the weight measurement.

Zeroing the balance won't help when things are physically lighter in high-pressure environments.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Would_an_object_weigh_more_or_less_in_vacuum

Would an object weigh more or less in vacuum?

An object will weigh more in vacuum than in air because of the upthrust. There is no upthrust in vacuum whereas in air the pressure pushes an object or person from all sides. The air is dense and it is similar like water where the weight of an object is equal to the weight of the water displaced by it.

The Earths magnetic field is approximately 1/4 the strength of a fridge magnet, so I doubt it has a significant effect on a ceramic gnome or a lead weight, but the burden of proof is yours to show it does, so go to!

How do we know that all materials in the digital scale are non-magnetic?

Could you explain why a gnome might be lighter underground when the Earth's magnetic field should be stronger there? As shown in the link I provided?

The link says that the first reading was taken above ground and the second reading was taken in an underground lab environment. There are a lot of factors at play. There may also be magnetic material in the earth between the surface and the building. This underground lab may have been pressurized differently than the building up top. There may have been a difference in the static force of the desk it was on, the floors, walls and ceilings of the two locations. The experiment is totally uncontrolled.

Your link also asserts the following:

The second effect that can change an object's weight with location is that the Earth is slightly flattened at the poles. That means its radius at the equator is about 20 kilometres bigger than at the poles, Jillings said. Objects at the equator are therefore slightly farther away from the centre of the Earth, so the gravitational force is not as strong.

How can it be that things are "lighter at the equator" if the equator bulges out there and there is more mass beneath your feet?

It should be reversed, that things are heavier at the equator because there is more mass pulling you down. Otherwise the idea of being lighter as you travel underground does not make sense. Observations of gnomes weighing less at the equator would run contradictory to the model.

Clearly, they are making things up to justify observations which contradict RET.

9656

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 16, 2013, 10:26:28 PM »

These alleged gravity space missions were not controlled, either.

Please elaborate.  What do you mean by "not controlled"?

Do you know what a controlled experiment is?

9657

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 16, 2013, 10:24:36 PM »

Atmospheric pressure would not be an issue on a balance unless the pressure varies greatly over the span of a square foot, which is highly unlikely.  Signifigant digits would rule out the Earth's magnetic field in the Gnome experiment since the Earth's magnetic field is measured in millionths of a Tesla, too weak to account for the tenth of a gram variations you can see in the gnome experiment.  It also would not account for the gnome weighing less underground, since magnetic fields get stronger as you reduce the distance between the attracting masses.  See below for the results of the gnome experiment at a laboratory 2kms underground:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/travelling-gnome-experiment-visits-world-s-deepest-lab-1.1294979

Your assessment that pressure is the same everywhere on earth and would not vary is false. The atmospheric pressure is different between locations. If you are in Death Valley, the air pressure is different than if you were at a beach in Florida or the top of Mt. Everest.

Your assessment that the magnetic field is far too weak for affect is also plainly false. It is certainly strong enough to keep a compass needle pointed at the poles, let alone affect the small parts in a digital scale.

9658

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration

« on: December 16, 2013, 05:22:11 PM »

The gnome experiment is not a controlled trial. It is not being conducted in a lab, but being sent from person to person via post mail.

Gravity measuring experiment are incredibly sensitive and outside factors weigh in. For example, how are they ruling out that the varying magnetic field of the earth is not affecting the metal weights in the weighing machine?

Different areas on earth have different atmospheric pressures, if only slight, and thus things fall faster/slower via buoyancy. How are they ruling out that either the gnome or the balance are not affected by the pressure?

The static force is said to be orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force. How do these experiments account for the static force from the floor, walls, and ceiling of the room the experiment is conducted in?

See: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Per the Mercator gravity map, my comment is that it comes from a space mission and is automatically invalidated on grounds that sustained space travel is not possible. These alleged gravity space missions were not controlled, either.

9659

Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch

« on: December 15, 2013, 04:29:19 PM »

For an example that these private rocket companies are operating on government bases, look no further than the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, where the Atlas, Delta, and Saturn class rockets were built by Rocketdyne and other 'private' companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory

SSFL was slated as a United States government facility dedicated to the development and testing of nuclear reactors, powerful rockets such as the Delta II, and the systems that powered the Apollo missions.

Rocket engine development

North American Aviation (NAA) began its development of liquid propellant rocket engines after the end of WWII. The Rocketdyne division of NAA, which came into being under its own name in the mid-1950s,[citation needed] designed and tested several rocket engines at the facility. They included engines for the Army's Redstone (an advanced short-range version of the German V-2), and the Army Jupiter intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM) as well as the Air Force's counterpart IRBM, the Thor.[citation needed] Also included were engines for the Atlas Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), as well as the twin combustion chamber alcohol/liquid oxygen booster engine for the NAVAHO, a large, intercontinental cruise missile that never became operational. Later, Rocketdyne designed and tested the huge F-1 engine that was eventually used as one of a cluster of engines powering the Apollo booster, as well as the J-2 liquid oxygen/hydrogen upper stage engine also used on the Project Apollo spacecraft.

9660

Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch

« on: December 15, 2013, 04:22:41 PM »

The analogy is apt for several reasons. As admitted, a car engine cannot simply be "scaled up" to reach 800mph. This makes the argument that rocket technology is already available to the public invalid. It necessarily does not follow that because small rockets are possible and exist, that a large one weighing hundreds of tons could exceed the speeds necessary to get into space or achieve escape velocity.

the difference is that no "car" can go 800mph.

It's not an engine issue, rockets however can go that fast when scaled up.

the only "cars" that do get into the region of 800mph are not in fact cars, they are rockets and other aircraft with unpowered wheels bolted on. You might as well use the fact that you cant scale a car engine up to allow a car to fly as evidence that car engines can't power planes.

What if a company claimed to have invented a car which could go 800 mph, but the technology was conveniently proprietary or out of reach fro others to reproduce?

Moller International has been claiming to have a working sky car for many years now, and is only waiting on a few more big investments before they can begin production.

If the technology cannot be reproduced by others freely, and is controlled, then the claims that such things have been built, or can be built, are dubious.

SpaceX, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and other rocket designers are all government contractors, operating under government regulation, with facilities on government bases, under direct supervision of government managers. There is no implicit trust of transparency or independence.

In fact, the government uses most of these contracting companies as temp agencies. While you might work for Lockheed Martin by name, the actual work you do for, say the Department of Defense, is done on DOD facilities and under the direct supervision of the government manager. There may be a small Lockheed Martin structure, where you report to your Lockheed Martin supervisor, who then reports to the government manager, but the environment is the same. The government calls the shots, not your contracting company.