Dual1ty

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #60 on: May 18, 2023, 07:01:59 AM »

So if your axiom is that the Heliocentric model is true, when it is in fact not true - what then? What do you have then?

There is no "arguing" or "debating" when it comes to natural science; Natural science is about objective reality. Cold objective facts, not interpretations or assumptions.

Ok, I get that you think it isn’t true. The critical question is why? I’ve shown you some examples of observations that perfectly fit the heliocentric model, and which do not fit the geocentric model. How do you explain our observations of the solar system and the stars around us from a geocentric perspective?

Ok, let's imagine for a second that there were no stars and no planets. How would you then pretend to prove that the Earth is a spinning ball planet orbiting around the Sun, without assuming that the Sun is a space ball bigger than Earth, millions of miles away?
« Last Edit: May 18, 2023, 07:05:04 AM by Dual1ty »

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6479
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #61 on: May 18, 2023, 08:13:03 AM »
Ok, let's imagine for a second that there were no stars and no planets. How would you then pretend to prove that the Earth is a spinning ball planet orbiting around the Sun, without assuming that the Sun is a space ball bigger than Earth, millions of miles away?
I'd suggest that ships disappearing below the horizon as they sail out to sea and the bottom of distant landmarks or land masses being hidden below the horizon, and the amount they're hidden increasing with distance, is a pretty good start. EA is the explanation given here, but it does require an explanation. If the earth is flat then why can't you see the rest of the objects?
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

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

SteelyBob

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #62 on: May 18, 2023, 08:53:08 AM »

Ok, let's imagine for a second that there were no stars and no planets. How would you then pretend to prove that the Earth is a spinning ball planet orbiting around the Sun, without assuming that the Sun is a space ball bigger than Earth, millions of miles away?

Ok...that's not even close to being an adequate response to the question I asked, but it's an interesting thought experiment. So, no stars, no planets, I'll throw in no moon as well. Just a blank day / night sky, with the sun as it appears to us now.

So, what could we deduce from surface-based experiments?

1. Survey the earth, so we can know accurate positions of places. This would be the first clue that we are on something spherical, as the distances between known places on large land masses don't make sense on a flat earth.

2. Take observations of the sun throughout the day from different places on the earth. This will establish the 24-hour cycle, as well as the annual cycle across the year, and the relationship between the sun's position in the sky and its variation with position - ie how it appears to somebody in, say South Africa compared to somebody looking at it from Europe. In London right now, for example, the sun is about 46 degrees above the horizon, at around 120 degrees true azimuth. In Cape Town right now it's about 20 degrees above the horizon on a heading of about 50 degrees true.

3. Observe gyroscopes, ring lasers, and large pendulums, and note how their behaviour varies with position. Orientated level to a local observer, they show a rotation rate of 15 degrees per hour x sine of the local latitude.

4. The surveyed position data, combined with the rotation data and the observed sun position can only make sense on a rotating sphere. This also is also supported by the behaviour of weather systems, whose rotation in relation to pressure gradients at different latitudes in the two hemispheres only makes sense on a rotating earth. Tides also support this, although without a moon our tidal patterns would be very different.

5. The next challenge is to look at seasonal variations. The best explanation for this is a tilted earth. That would then require that the earth is either rocking back forth towards and away from the sun, or the earth and/or sun are in motion.

6. We can dismiss the rocking because a) that would require an energy source and b) we would detect the motion through gyroscopes, and yet we don't.

7. The tricky part, to get to your point, is whether we would be able to tell whether the sun was orbiting the earth, or whether the earth was orbiting the sun. I'm not sure that you could tell...but more importantly, I'm not sure there would actually be an answer. There is no fixed datum in space - things only move relative to one another, so if there were only two bodies, which one is orbiting the other is somewhat arbitrary.

8. This brings us back to my original point. It is the observations of other things - planets, their moons, our moon, and the stars, and indeed things such as tidal patterns that all sums to together to form a picture of a series of planets in orbit around the sun. How else would you explain any of that in a geocentric system? Could you even begin to draw a geocentric diagram of the earth, other planets and the sun that would correspond to our observations?

Dual1ty

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #63 on: May 18, 2023, 09:19:33 AM »

Ok, let's imagine for a second that there were no stars and no planets. How would you then pretend to prove that the Earth is a spinning ball planet orbiting around the Sun, without assuming that the Sun is a space ball bigger than Earth, millions of miles away?

Ok...that's not even close to being an adequate response to the question I asked, but it's an interesting thought experiment. So, no stars, no planets, I'll throw in no moon as well. Just a blank day / night sky, with the sun as it appears to us now.

So, what could we deduce from surface-based experiments?

1. Survey the earth, so we can know accurate positions of places. This would be the first clue that we are on something spherical, as the distances between known places on large land masses don't make sense on a flat earth.

2. Take observations of the sun throughout the day from different places on the earth. This will establish the 24-hour cycle, as well as the annual cycle across the year, and the relationship between the sun's position in the sky and its variation with position - ie how it appears to somebody in, say South Africa compared to somebody looking at it from Europe. In London right now, for example, the sun is about 46 degrees above the horizon, at around 120 degrees true azimuth. In Cape Town right now it's about 20 degrees above the horizon on a heading of about 50 degrees true.

3. Observe gyroscopes, ring lasers, and large pendulums, and note how their behaviour varies with position. Orientated level to a local observer, they show a rotation rate of 15 degrees per hour x sine of the local latitude.

4. The surveyed position data, combined with the rotation data and the observed sun position can only make sense on a rotating sphere. This also is also supported by the behaviour of weather systems, whose rotation in relation to pressure gradients at different latitudes in the two hemispheres only makes sense on a rotating earth. Tides also support this, although without a moon our tidal patterns would be very different.

5. The next challenge is to look at seasonal variations. The best explanation for this is a tilted earth. That would then require that the earth is either rocking back forth towards and away from the sun, or the earth and/or sun are in motion.

6. We can dismiss the rocking because a) that would require an energy source and b) we would detect the motion through gyroscopes, and yet we don't.

7. The tricky part, to get to your point, is whether we would be able to tell whether the sun was orbiting the earth, or whether the earth was orbiting the sun. I'm not sure that you could tell...but more importantly, I'm not sure there would actually be an answer. There is no fixed datum in space - things only move relative to one another, so if there were only two bodies, which one is orbiting the other is somewhat arbitrary.

8. This brings us back to my original point. It is the observations of other things - planets, their moons, our moon, and the stars, and indeed things such as tidal patterns that all sums to together to form a picture of a series of planets in orbit around the sun. How else would you explain any of that in a geocentric system? Could you even begin to draw a geocentric diagram of the earth, other planets and the sun that would correspond to our observations?

Didn't I tell you before that natural science is not about interpretations or assumptions? I know, it's kind of a mindfuck for you because all the globe Earth / Heliocentric model have are interpretations and assumptions, because those models are completely contrary to our Flat Earth geocentric reality.

This thread is about ETHER VS. ROCKETSHIP EARTH. I don't have the time or the will to deal with zealots who are brain-glitched with circular reasonings and false axioms. So once again, you should keep your beliefs to yourself. Sorry to be so blunt, but I am a blunt person. I don't dance around - YOU should dance for ME because YOU are the reality denier.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2023, 09:25:01 AM by Dual1ty »

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6479
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #64 on: May 18, 2023, 09:38:12 AM »
all the globe Earth / Heliocentric model have are interpretations and assumptions
Well that's not true. We have people in the ISS orbiting the earth as we speak, directly observing it.
We have photos of the globe earth, we have timelapse videos made from those photos showing the earth rotating in space.
Now, you can call all that fake if you want, but that's just argument from incredulity.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

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

Dual1ty

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #65 on: May 18, 2023, 09:40:53 AM »
all the globe Earth / Heliocentric model have are interpretations and assumptions
Well that's not true. We have people in the ISS orbiting the earth as we speak, directly observing it.
We have photos of the globe earth, we have timelapse videos made from those photos showing the earth rotating in space.
Now, you can call all that fake if you want, but that's just argument from incredulity.

AllAroundTheWorld (nice troll name, by the way), go back to your Electronic Arts game and your lollipops.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6479
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #66 on: May 18, 2023, 09:43:36 AM »
all the globe Earth / Heliocentric model have are interpretations and assumptions
Well that's not true. We have people in the ISS orbiting the earth as we speak, directly observing it.
We have photos of the globe earth, we have timelapse videos made from those photos showing the earth rotating in space.
Now, you can call all that fake if you want, but that's just argument from incredulity.

AllAroundTheWorld (nice troll name, by the way), go back to your Electronic Arts game and your lollipops.
QED. Just calling everything which doesn't fit your worldview as fake.
You can prove anything to yourself if you do that.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

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

SteelyBob

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #67 on: May 18, 2023, 11:04:27 AM »
Didn't I tell you before that natural science is not about interpretations or assumptions? I know, it's kind of a mindfuck for you because all the globe Earth / Heliocentric model have are interpretations and assumptions, because those models are completely contrary to our Flat Earth geocentric reality.

This thread is about ETHER VS. ROCKETSHIP EARTH. I don't have the time or the will to deal with zealots who are brain-glitched with circular reasonings and false axioms. So once again, you should keep your beliefs to yourself. Sorry to be so blunt, but I am a blunt person. I don't dance around - YOU should dance for ME because YOU are the reality denier.

So in summary, you keep asking questions and posing challenges, and then when these are addressed you completely fail to engage with any of the points or questions asked of you in response. Nobody is dancing for anybody - you are just failing to make any case for your beliefs. The problem for you is that this is indistinguishable from somebody who hasn't a clue what they are talking about and is just making stuff up.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2769
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #68 on: May 18, 2023, 11:25:40 AM »
I have yet to see anyone justify reasonably justify the existence of a force called gravity. They trot out a measure of  acceleration and call that g.

The earth is not moving. It is stationary.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

SteelyBob

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #69 on: May 18, 2023, 11:34:29 AM »
I have yet to see anyone justify reasonably justify the existence of a force called gravity. They trot out a measure of  acceleration and call that g.

The earth is not moving. It is stationary.

We trot out a measure of force. That force is proportional to mass, and causes an acceleration which we call g. We can measure that force very easily - you can do it at home using some weights and springs or a scale / balance. Regardless of your beliefs, you must surely concede that there is a force acting 'downwards' on everything on the earth? Even if you believe the earth to be stationary, you still have to explain what the force is. What is it, and why does it vary slightly depending on our location on the earth?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2769
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #70 on: May 18, 2023, 11:46:51 AM »
I have yet to see anyone justify reasonably justify the existence of a force called gravity. They trot out a measure of  acceleration and call that g.

The earth is not moving. It is stationary.

We trot out a measure of force.

No.

You trot out a measure of acceleration.
That force is proportional to mass, and causes an acceleration which we call g. We can measure that force very easily - you can do it at home using some weights and springs or a scale / balance. Regardless of your beliefs, you must surely concede that there is a force acting 'downwards' on everything on the earth? Even if you believe the earth to be stationary, you still have to explain what the force is. What is it, and why does it vary slightly depending on our location on the earth?
Things fall as they do because the aether is a fluid and it acts differently on objects due to their density and mass in different locations, due to the nature of aether, not the nature of the objects.

^Here, we have RE adherents admitting "downwards" and. please notice, claiming that gravity is directly proportional to mass (therefore, the actual "measure" of the force of gravity would never vary at all if said where found at a various locations) and:
...objects are also more dense than the air above them so why would they fall down and not up?
^Another RE just typing stuff for laughs.
 
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6479
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #71 on: May 18, 2023, 11:58:05 AM »
Things fall as they do because the aether is a fluid and it acts differently on objects due to their density and mass in different locations, due to the nature of aether, not the nature of the objects.
And what's your evidence for any of that?

Quote
claiming that gravity is directly proportional to mass (therefore, the actual "measure" of the force of gravity would never vary at all if said where found at a various locations)
Why wouldn't it? The force of gravity is proportional to mass and the distance between the centre of gravity of two objects. But the earth isn't perfectly spherical and not of uniform density, so that affects the strength of gravity in different locations. You know they use that to identify things like fossil fuel deposits under the earth?

Why do you think the existence of gravity needs "justifying"?
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

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

SteelyBob

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #72 on: May 18, 2023, 12:12:44 PM »

No.

You trot out a measure of acceleration.
That force is proportional to mass, and causes an acceleration which we call g. We can measure that force very easily - you can do it at home using some weights and springs or a scale / balance. Regardless of your beliefs, you must surely concede that there is a force acting 'downwards' on everything on the earth? Even if you believe the earth to be stationary, you still have to explain what the force is. What is it, and why does it vary slightly depending on our location on the earth?
Things fall as they do because the aether is a fluid and it acts differently on objects due to their density and mass in different locations, due to the nature of aether, not the nature of the objects.

^Here, we have RE adherents admitting "downwards" and. please notice, claiming that gravity is directly proportional to mass (therefore, the actual "measure" of the force of gravity would never vary at all if said where found at a various locations) and:
...objects are also more dense than the air above them so why would they fall down and not up?
^Another RE just typing stuff for laughs.

Forget about falling for a second, and consider objects at rest. If I hang a one kilo weight on a spring screwed into the ceiling, the spring will stretch by a certain amount. There is a force acting on the weight. That force has to be something. We can measure it, and we can very accurately model and predict its behaviour. If not gravity, then what, exactly? We know that F=MA, as we can prove this using scenarios in the horizontal plane - kids do it at school using ticker tape timers and small carts on tracks etc. Knowing this, we can establish what the force is acting on a particular mass due to gravity, and therefore what the acceleration, g, due to gravity is. What are you proposing as replacement for this model? If I have a 1Kg weight, what is the force acting downwards on it? How would you work that out?

And yes - I said 'downwards'. I don't see why that is a triumphant gotcha for you. I am of course referring to whatever is 'down', local to you, the observer. Hence putting it in quotes.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2769
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #73 on: May 18, 2023, 12:17:42 PM »
Things fall as they do because the aether is a fluid and it acts differently on objects due to their density and mass in different locations, due to the nature of aether, not the nature of the objects.
And what's your evidence for any of that?
My eyes.

I see a different fluid, hereinafter labeled "WATER," and how it acts on objects descending through it, causing the objects to behave differently within the period of descent due to the nature of currents and varying pressures.

No reason to believe aether, another fluid, would not behave likewise.
Quote
claiming that gravity is directly proportional to mass (therefore, the actual "measure" of the force of gravity would never vary at all if said where found at a various locations)
Why wouldn't it? The force of gravity is proportional to mass and the distance between the centre of gravity of two objects. But the earth isn't perfectly spherical and not of uniform density, so that affects the strength of gravity in different locations. You know they use that to identify things like fossil fuel deposits under the earth?

Why do you think the existence of gravity needs "justifying"?
Do you see me asking you to justify Aesop or the Brothers Grimm?

I don't care about you justifying anything.

Just don't trot out a measure of acceleration, label it GRAVITY!!!, and expect that label to go unchallenged.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2769
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #74 on: May 18, 2023, 12:25:23 PM »
Forget about falling for a second, and consider objects at rest. (but bouncing on a spring)...
Are you gonna make up your mind anytime soon?

Look, I know what they call it (I even know how long the spring is gonna be at the end of the day), but at the end of the day, all of it is simply determined by the nature of the aetheric pool and its interaction with the nature of said object of a weight of one kilo.

Pressure and currents within a fluid medium.

That is all we are discussing here.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

SteelyBob

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #75 on: May 18, 2023, 12:36:47 PM »
Forget about falling for a second, and consider objects at rest. (but bouncing on a spring)...
Are you gonna make up your mind anytime soon?

Is the concept of a mass, at rest, on the end of a spring too much for you? And please don't change other people's quotes - that's very bad form indeed.

Look, I know what they call it (I even know how long the spring is gonna be at the end of the day), but at the end of the day, all of it is simply determined by the nature of the aetheric pool and its interaction with the nature of said object of a weight of one kilo.

Pressure and currents within a fluid medium.

That is all we are discussing here.

So your 'aetheric pool' with its 'pressure and currents' exerts a force on all masses in direct proportion to the mass involved? Isn't that essentially the same thing? All you've done is change the title and conjure up some made-up mechanism.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2769
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #76 on: May 18, 2023, 12:53:30 PM »
Forget about falling for a second, and consider objects at rest. (but bouncing on a spring)...
Are you gonna make up your mind anytime soon?

Is the concept of a mass, at rest, on the end of a spring too much for you? And please don't change other people's quotes - that's very bad form indeed.
If you did not intend to include a spring, then I could have been justly accused of changing your quote or intent of your post. As it stands, now, I know for a fact you wanted to do just that, so your complaint is ignored and I remain in fine form.
Look, I know what they call it (I even know how long the spring is gonna be at the end of the day), but at the end of the day, all of it is simply determined by the nature of the aetheric pool and its interaction with the nature of said object of a weight of one kilo.

Pressure and currents within a fluid medium.

That is all we are discussing here.

So your 'aetheric pool' with its 'pressure and currents' exerts a force on all masses in direct proportion to the mass involved? Isn't that essentially the same thing? All you've done is change the title and conjure up some made-up mechanism.
I haven't conjured up anything. The aether surrounds you as we write.

We can measure the force of the pressure applied by the aether and its currents.

We can even map them.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

SteelyBob

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #77 on: May 18, 2023, 12:57:23 PM »

If you did not intend to include a spring, then I could have been justly accused of changing your quote or intent of your post. As it stands, now, I know for a fact you wanted to do just that, so your complaint is ignored and I remain in fine form.


So you are struggling with the concept of something being on the end of a spring, at rest? You can only comprehend things bouncing on springs? Thanks for clarifying.

I haven't conjured up anything. The aether surrounds you as we write.

We can measure the force of the pressure applied by the aether and its currents.

We can even map them.

Great. And it exerts a force on everything in proportion to its mass, pointing 'downwards', right?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2769
    • View Profile
Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #78 on: May 18, 2023, 01:03:16 PM »

If you did not intend to include a spring, then I could have been justly accused of changing your quote or intent of your post. As it stands, now, I know for a fact you wanted to do just that, so your complaint is ignored and I remain in fine form.


So you are struggling with the concept of something being on the end of a spring, at rest? You can only comprehend things bouncing on springs? Thanks for clarifying. I must focus really great on words like bounce and at rest, because my spring example is worthless.
FTFY...

Okay, whatever trips your trigger

I haven't conjured up anything. The aether surrounds you as we write.

We can measure the force of the pressure applied by the aether and its currents.

We can even map them.

Great. And it exerts a force on everything in proportion to its mass, pointing 'downwards', right?
When things fall, they are universally described to be going "downwards," (unless you ask AATW...)
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

SteelyBob

Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« Reply #79 on: May 18, 2023, 01:06:24 PM »
So you are struggling with the concept of something being on the end of a spring, at rest? You can only comprehend things bouncing on springs? Thanks for clarifying. I must focus really great on words like bounce and at rest, because my spring example is worthless.
FTFY...

Okay, whatever trips your trigger

[/quote]

That just doesn't make any sense at all. I said at rest, you said bounce. Whatever.

When things fall, they are universally described to be going "downwards," (unless you ask AATW...)

Irrelevant, and a distraction. Focus on the important bit. Your aetheric pool, or whatever you want to call it, can we agree that it exerts a force in proportion to the mass it is acting on?