*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9001
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #60 on: September 01, 2021, 04:10:41 AM »
If you'll forgive the topic stray (just thought of this)
How does the FE model account for eclipses?   I guess you could conjure up the moon getting in front of the sun for a solar ecplise but how do you explain a lunar eclipse?

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

Scroll down to the lunar eclipse section.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 491
    • View Profile
Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #61 on: September 01, 2021, 06:24:46 AM »
If you'll forgive the topic stray (just thought of this)
How does the FE model account for eclipses?   I guess you could conjure up the moon getting in front of the sun for a solar ecplise but how do you explain a lunar eclipse?

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

Scroll down to the lunar eclipse section.

But Tom…again, if EA is real then taking geometric sightings of celestial bodies to calculate the size of the earth wouldn’t work without correcting for the distortion, would it?

Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #62 on: September 01, 2021, 07:24:38 AM »
If you'll forgive the topic stray (just thought of this)
How does the FE model account for eclipses?   I guess you could conjure up the moon getting in front of the sun for a solar ecplise but how do you explain a lunar eclipse?

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

Scroll down to the lunar eclipse section.
Thanks, I'll grant that the EA pages don't lack for imagination.  The notion that all light curves "upward" presumably that is relative to the surface of the earth, is a rather geocentric point of view, but it also has major problems for things like the laser retroreflector/range finders left on the moon.  If this curving were happening the path the beam takes when the moon is at a lower position would be greater than when it is more overhead, but all observatories get the same distance (with in about 6 inches). Oh but wait the moon landings never happened and all the astronomers that have used the reflectors are part of the conspiracy, right?

If EA was happening you would get the maximum signal strength on your SAT TV when pointing your dish lower than the satellite's actual position, but that is not what is experienced.

But back to the lunar eclipse, the claim is that it's not the earth's shadow but "The Lunar Eclipse occurs when the Moon moves beyond the Sun's light".  This would be a very gradual light to dark transition but what we see is a sharp transition with all the subtle characteristics of a shadow.


Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #63 on: September 02, 2021, 11:12:33 AM »
It would server as compelling evidence that it COULD be faked.

In potentia/imagination maybe, but i think you agree that just because we can imagine it doesn't make it achievable/reasonable nor actual.

Quote
You want to wave that away by imagining you have a countered that
explanation.  You have not.

I am not countering your explanation, but I am humbly asking YOU to imagine along with me!

The purpose of this hypothetical imagining is not to hand wave, but to try and evaluate/anticipate what impact it would have in our conversation and on our perspectives.

Supposing you had just been given an alternative explanation for gps function, that you accepted as at least potentially possible. I think the absolute MOST this could do is convince you to soften your wording in the future - "No other way possible" merely becomes "No other way remotely plausible" or something.

It's a long walk for a very short drink of water if you know what I mean.

Quote
Again your argument is just hand waving.

I'm not discussing arguments, I'm discussing possibilities.

Quote
The entire experiment depends on the two satellites being in a very well known orbit and watching how that orbit is altered by flying over more or less mass.

True.  That is what is claimed.  The major trouble, and a chief reason other possibilities are considerable, is that the claim is not validateable/verifiable.  It depends on abject appeal to authority in order to believe.

Quote
We have well developed thrones of mass, its impact on space and time, orbital mechanics, etc.

We have many models for such things, most of them contradictory.  None of them were ever correct before (historically), and there is good reason to recognize they are still not correct now.

Quote
When we use that to do experiments (like launch satttelites) we observe their behavior is exactly as our theory predicts.
 

As I said, this is particularly unlikely.  I'm just not certain it is impossible, because far wilder things have happened before.

Quote
Yet you want to say all that means nothing and maybe they are "riding currents".

Not at all! Many of those incorrect conceptions/models I mentioned above remain useful and in use to this day.

Regarding the currents, this is purely speculation but it isn't baseless.  There are several observations that support our shared experiential reality of "stationary and at rest".  When you recognize the earth is motionless, you also recognize that the sky is in motion.  The currents are deduced from these observations, however they are still speculations.

It is conceivable that the motion the satellites have in the sky is due to another means of propulsion entirely, regardless of the existence of said currents.

Quote
Eratosthenes MEASURED the size of the earth, assuming it was round.


Ooo, so close! Eratosthenes measured a (singular) shadow and CALCULATED the circumference of the earth assuming it was round, that sunlight is always parallel "globally", and a slew of other unvalidated assumptions.

Quote
And the number he got is very close to the number we know today using vastly different measurement techniques.

I'll let tom field this one.  The bottom line is that when you have the same assumptions (world views) and follow similar approaches, you ought to tend towards similar results.  We inherited MANY of those assumptions (that lead to such things as the radius and circumference of an assumed spherical world) and procedures/approaches from those very ancient greeks themselves!

Quote
Yes so much easier to just wave your hands and make silly claims. I get it.

Apparently. But you can stop anytime you want to!

You may be under the misimpression that you are arguing against me or vice versa.  I engage in rational discourse, and am not here to make silly claims nor hand wave.

Quote
The lights in the sky "shine where they please"? Are you attributing free will to such things?

Poetic license!

Quote
The FE model can not even explain how roughly half the earth is dark and half light.  Why don't you start with that?

I can tell you from experience that this bit will likely be particularly hard for you to grasp/swallow.

One reason we don't start with that, is because we don't want to inadvertently practice mythology.  It's frightfully easy to imagine why things happen and then teach it to people as fact.  Another is that, if the world is not the shape we were taught it is, there may well be more land than what we are aware of.  Lack of validated and validatable data, is essentially the reason you end up dabbling in mythology when you don't mean to.

Quote
If the observations are not as the global earth model predicts, then please point out those descrepeneces.

There are many such observations which we can discuss, but that was not my point.  The point was that we experience a flat world.  We only interpret a handful of observations and conclude "globe" due to conditioning through rote under the guise of education from childhood (contrary to that experiential flat reality)

Quote
So geology, cosmology, oceanography, ecology, most of biology, anything about the actual world as opposed to a lab experiment is not science in your view.  You're wrong.

Most all of us learn and use incorrect colloquial definitions of scientific vernacular.  Your scientifically incorrect use of the word theory is a very common example.

One cannot hope to evaluate or even discuss science (let alone practice it!) if one doesn't know the proper definitions.  How could you ever hope to discern between what was scientific and what wasn't if your definition of science was wrong?!

Let's start simple by defining science :

Science is what rigorously adheres to the scientific method and colloquially to the body of knowledge that method produces. The one exception is natural/scientific law which is established purely through rigorous and repeated observation/measurement alone.

Do you agree, disagree, and/or have anything to add/change?

Quote
Read Sean Carol's The Big Picture, it happens to have an excellent explanation of the role of Bayesian reasoning in science.

I may check that out.  I didn't say bayesian reasoning (and other statistical analysis) wasn't employed by scientists, I said it wasn't part of the scientific method.

Quote
Now you are just playing word games.

I appreciate that it might appear that way to you, but I assure you that is not the case.

Quote
If this were a technical discussion among scientists then yes we would need to be careful about such things.

I'm glad you recognize and appreciate that what I said was correct.  This is a scientific discussion, and we should be careful to keep that in mind and use the proper vernacular so we avoid misunderstanding (and unintentional equivocation fallacy).

Quote
But it is far from that and I think you clearly gleaned my meaning.

I did!  My point in response was that because they aren't theories in any scientific context - they can't be evaluated/compared using meta-scientific methodology (like bayesian, or occam).  They are simply two statements of "fact"/belief made by various people.

Quote
Perhaps you can list out some of those contradictory observations?

Absolutely. The demonstrable behavior of water's surface at rest (as established as law in hydrostatics), "seeing too far", and frozen lake observations to name a few.

Quote
Again you play games.

I'm just answering your questions!

Quote
No observation has ever been made of the edge

Right, so why do you think one exists?

Quote
OR of a vast infinite plane.

Right, so that means that there can't be one?

Quote
Is all this just part of you religions belief?

I endeavor to eschew and excise all belief where it does not belong.  Belief has no place in knowledge/fact (least of all scientific) and is directly across purposes to objective study of any kind.  If you believe the world is spherical, flat, or any other shape - you have FAITH, not fact.

Many do succumb to the poison of belief however, and that bias prevents them from being able to critically evaluate their own positions.  Globe believers and flat earth believers alike are a major problem.  One of the most important skills to build engaging in flat earth research is discerning the difference between knowledge and belief masquerading as it (both externally, and perhaps more importantly - internally, in your own heart and mind)

Quote
I think that makes it the theory that has the most (in this case actually overwhelming) support and thus is the best we can achieve about what is so in the world. 

The trouble being, it isn't a theory :(  and all the support in the universe couldn't make it one.  There is more support for the world being not spherical - but that doesn't (and never could, and should never be allowed to) prove the world one shape or another.

Quote
We could all be brains in jars of course but so far we have no evidence of that.

There is no more intellectually vapid waste of time than simulationism.  It is the drain where philosophy goes to die.

 
Quote
The RE is hugely simpler than the FE.

That is completely wrong, and on some level you know it.  The list of assumptions (the vast majority unvalidated, and learned as presumptive "fact") required for the RE is embarrassingly long.  Again, occam is for comparing scientific theories/hypotheses - of which the presumed/believed shape of the world is neither.

Quote
I can't say that you have even begun.

It's a two way street!  We both must "begun" together.

Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #64 on: September 03, 2021, 01:15:29 AM »
It would server as compelling evidence that it COULD be faked.

In potentia/imagination maybe, but i think you agree that just because we can imagine it doesn't make it achievable/reasonable nor actual.
The point is that if it can not be faked, imagining otherwise is pointless.  You obviously know that, why else all the evasion?

The entire experiment depends on the two satellites being in a very well known orbit and watching how that orbit is altered by flying over more or less mass.

True.  That is what is claimed.  The major trouble, and a chief reason other possibilities are considerable, is that the claim is not validateable/verifiable.  It depends on abject appeal to authority in order to believe.
The structures (usually bodies of underground water) that the system finds, and that no one know of before, actually exist.  Or are you saying that since you did not personally see all of this and witness the launch, travel to space yourself to see the satellites are there,  and all of the related technology etc you do not believe it?

We have well developed thrones of mass, its impact on space and time, orbital mechanics, etc.

We have many models for such things, most of them contradictory.  None of them were ever correct before (historically), and there is good reason to recognize they are still not correct now.
Again you make wild claims but do not back up a single one.  This is your theme.  You did not answer a single question I asked.
You're an articulate troll, but a troll none the less.  I'm done with you.   It is highly unlikely that you actually believe anything you have posted.  So I'm not going to allow you to waste any more of my time.

Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #65 on: September 03, 2021, 02:01:58 PM »
The point is that if it can not be faked, imagining otherwise is pointless.  You obviously know that, why else all the evasion?

The reason for discussing the hypothetical is to get you to recognize how meaningless such a potential explaination would be to you.  It was merely to try and save time.

Quote
Or are you saying that since you did not personally see all of this and witness the launch, travel to space yourself to see the satellites are there,  and all of the related technology etc you do not believe it?

No, I am saying that because there can be no space of any kind (outside of fiction) - i find technology that supposedly resides there and depends on its unique and unatural characteristics (orbit, vacuum, etc.) to be highly suspicious.

The technologies that infer underground mapping (even frommhigh altitude) actually exist, and I presume such technologies were employed to capture the data that further, presumed satellite derived, composites were comprised of.

Quote
Again you make wild claims but do not back up a single one.
 

What claim do you require "backing up" and what would suffice to "back it up" in your view?  The majority of our discussion is not my claims - we are merely discussing possibilities.

Quote
You're an articulate troll, but a troll none the less. 
... I'm not going to allow you to waste any more of my time.

I assure you, I am earnest and no troll (though I might as well admit to NOT beating my wife while I'm at it, for all the good it will do).  You can only confirm my earnest sincerity by continued interaction over time.

Unfortunatley, if you avoid such interactions it is highly unlikely that you will be understood and perhaps even less likely that you will understand this subject.  I'm happy to answer any and all questions you might have if I can!