Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
After reading the Electromagnetic Acceleration wiki page, attempting to understand and figure out the details, it has dawned on me what the EA wiki page is saying. It says that scientists decided the earth is round because they did not accounting for light bending over long distances. Does this mean that if light does not bend over long distances, RET makes sense, is consistent with itself and observations? Did the wiki confirm RET if there is no dome and light does not bend over long distances?

In the wiki page, it says that celestial objects are always curved, hence light must be curved, because it is on a dome. Where did the dome come from, winy would one think there is a dome?

Seems per the wiki, if there is no dome and light does not curve over long distances, RET works and is consistent. So to prove FE, one must prove there is a dome and light bends over long distances. Is there any equations, descriptions of mechanism, and repeatable experiments to nail down the long distance light bending?

So with straight light and no dome, RET has description, explanation, and repeatable experiment. FET has no description, no explanation, no proof of dome and long distance light bending. Yet some think the earth is flat. Fascinating.

"Electromagnetic Acceleration" sounds so much more sciency than "bendy light".

*

Offline Tron

  • *
  • Posts: 366
    • View Profile
Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2022, 12:11:07 AM »
As you said, the dome is very important to FET.  Having an atmospheric dome which explains many RET phenonema is compelling to say the least. 
What if earth is flat but looks round?

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2022, 12:46:20 AM »
What do we know about the dome? Measurements? Materials? Anything? What reason, other than it is "very important to FE"? I don't see any dome. Are you saying that a dome exists because it explains things that otherwise make no sense on FE?

Galileo famously saw moons orbiting Jupiter, which appeared to transit across Jupiter and disappear behind it only to reappear as if coming out from behind, aka orbiting it. I am eager to understand what is going on with that in FET. So the dome definitely doesn't explain that. Nor does it explain how people a few hundred miles from each other can see completely different domes, one with sky blue, sun, and no stars, the other sees a dark sky with stars, same dome, same time. A dome with diameter 8000 mi would weigh an immense amount, a miracle of structural integrity, weighing heavily on the perimeter. And the inside surface of this dome is scientifically miraculous to show different skies to people in different places at the same time and although stars travel across the dome in perfect formation, planets, moon, and sun have different paths. Really want to know how that works. The FE answers to such questions are never answered by experiments and observations correlated to known facts. They are always of the form "Well, it could be ..." and never any proof, just endless explanations of what "might be", as though science was an endless series of speculation with no experiments, observation, and correlation with no facts.

The evidence for the dome is what, other than it makes a simplistic, if flawed explanation for the sky on FE. I submit that the dome introduces more problems than it explains. There is no evidence for the dome other than the need for FExplanation.
"Electromagnetic Acceleration" sounds so much more sciency than "bendy light".

*

Offline Tron

  • *
  • Posts: 366
    • View Profile
Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2022, 08:20:07 PM »
Jim I don't know what to say.  I can't speak for the official Wiki thread.  On some points we agree, like the sun is above the atmosphere. 

And the dome is the atmosphere!!  And the atmosphere does exist we can agree on.   How the atmosphere effects the distribution of light is a Flat Earth Theory that differs between some people.  All your other questions can be answered with conventional RE and FE science... 

Orbits around planets are still unkown to me from a Flat Earth perspective. 

What if earth is flat but looks round?

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2022, 10:09:51 PM »
Tron, you do understand that Newton's laws correspond to observations, that if light travels straight in a vacuum RE geometry matches observations, RET explains all this, everything from spaceflight to GPS to sextant, RET can explain all this.

I have been following FE since 2015, and the most explanation you get is a remotely plausible speculation, "Well, it could be ..." These always fall apart when you try yo pin down the details. Zero of them have a complete and consistent detailed explanation. No progress is ever made.

In the wiki, there are many maps, all have Australia wider than USA. No flat map with constant scale has ever been produced or ever will be. A globe map has correct scale distance everywhere, matching airline schedule time/speed/distance, sextant location, gps, all matches RET.

You have no EA/FE answer, RET has good answer, so which is true?
"Electromagnetic Acceleration" sounds so much more sciency than "bendy light".

*

Offline Tron

  • *
  • Posts: 366
    • View Profile
Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question
« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2022, 10:54:22 PM »
I think Flat Earth Theory has made alot of progress over the past few years.   Lets just keep talking science and let what happens happen. 
What if earth is flat but looks round?

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 1050
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2022, 01:32:15 AM »
The concept of a FE did very well for about 25,000 years until people realized it was no working too well.  About 2,500 years ago they left it behind along with the kind of thinking that nurtures it and developed such things as reason and science.  Those got us much further and faster such that now we can freely disseminate strange old ideas over a global network using devices that would not be 'real' according to zeteticisim.

There is no FET.  The 'T' is supposed to refer to "theory".  In science, theory requires much more than just conjecture.  What the modern FE movement has is a lot of conjecture of which a small amount could possibly, with some stretch of the imagination, be considered hypothesis.  Not theory though.  Theory requires a mathematical model that is repeatable and falsifiable and it requires both positive peer review and experimental confirmation.  By that measure you will find no theory here.

I would love to go into the issues with the EA wiki but when I have in the past I was sanctioned.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2022, 01:45:12 AM by BillO »
Quote from: Ironic Pete
I DO NOT NEED DATA, I'M PRETTY SURE I'M RIGHT!!!!

You think something is true, and that's good enough for you.

Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question
« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2022, 07:42:02 AM »
I think Flat Earth Theory has made alot of progress over the past few years.   Lets just keep talking science and let what happens happen.
I am tempted to conclude from this that you consider science a good means of determining the nature of reality.    Yet baring the "brains in jars" notion, science tells us with certainty that the earth is round.  Its not like say multiverse theory that has its supporters and detractors.  There are no papers in scientific journals making the case that the earth is flat.  So your statement seems puzzling.

*

Offline Tron

  • *
  • Posts: 366
    • View Profile
Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2022, 08:11:28 AM »
My statment seems puzzling because I still consider myself a student of science, the same person who grew up with an understanding the earth is a planet.  However, I was also taught that throughout history our ideas about the world have changed, sometimes dramatically so.  And when I come into evidence that there might be alternative explanations for the world around us, I generally am enthusiastic to learn about them. 

And how i learn about them requires learning from other scientists and following scientific principles during personal investigations. 
What if earth is flat but looks round?

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 1050
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question
« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2022, 12:47:15 PM »
And how i learn about them requires learning from other scientists and following scientific principles during personal investigations.
Have you found any scientists supporting or investigating a flat earth?  If so, who?  Also, have you seen any scientific principles put to use providing any evidence there is a flat earth?  If so, where?

I would be very interested in investigating either or both of those for myself.
Quote from: Ironic Pete
I DO NOT NEED DATA, I'M PRETTY SURE I'M RIGHT!!!!

You think something is true, and that's good enough for you.

*

Offline Tron

  • *
  • Posts: 366
    • View Profile
Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2022, 12:50:43 PM »
Billo, this forum is a good place to start.
What if earth is flat but looks round?

Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2022, 05:08:52 PM »
Billo, this forum is a good place to start.
Making wild claims that do not come close to standing up under scrutiny is not science.

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 1050
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2022, 06:20:07 PM »
Billo, this forum is a good place to start.
Science?  Here?  Clearly there is something missing in your understanding of what science is.

Quote from: Ironic Pete
I DO NOT NEED DATA, I'M PRETTY SURE I'M RIGHT!!!!

You think something is true, and that's good enough for you.

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question
« Reply #13 on: July 25, 2022, 07:23:41 PM »
You need to understand settled science versus bleeding edge, and it's relationship to engineering, which by using science to make gadgets, proves that science every day. Early astronomers had several models, much like FE, some thought the earth center, some the sun, etc. Over time, this became settled science, and everyone agreed about the planets (although some disagree on what the criteria for a planets is, they all agree on the size and position of Pluto). Everyone agrees that Polaris is 93M miles away in the direction of the earth's axis off the north pole. This has been confirmed every time a navigator used a sextant to find their latitude and you can make an inclinometer and measure the angle off the horizon and use your cell phone gps and observe it reports your latitude as the same as inclinometer.

There are frontiers of science and astronomy that are not agreed, understood, and accepted by consensus - big bang, quantum, string theory, dark matter/energy, etc. Things that are far away in time or space, extremely small or extremely large, the things furthest from our everyday experience. Even then, we can get consensus, for example everyone agrees that water is molecules with one oxygen atom bonded covalently to two hydrogen atoms. I have seen them separated using electrolysis, and the idea of covalent bonding and the periodic chart is completely consistent. Science departments, industries, medicine, millions have learned about, used, and confirmed so many times and so many ways. Would it be a good use of your time to try to disprove atoms, molecules, and chemistry?

If you want to propose creative ideas about astronomy, big bang, quantum, dark energy/matter are not certain, you can join the speculation and efforts to nail it down. I'm sure there are web discussion about these things, some with real scientists. TFES style discussion is perfectly reasonable there. But the shape of the earth had to be known for successful long distance navigation. People have walked, driven, sailed, and flown all over, navigated, measured, confirmed, located, measured the distance between everywhere, and it matches RE distances, no FE map ever matched. GPS matches sextant, matches airline schedule time/speed distance, matches odometer, matches scaled distance on globe map, and does not match any FE map.
"Electromagnetic Acceleration" sounds so much more sciency than "bendy light".

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 1050
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question
« Reply #14 on: July 25, 2022, 08:46:57 PM »
Everyone agrees that Polaris is 93M miles away in the direction of the earth's axis off the north pole.
Perhaps you meant 323LY?
Quote from: Ironic Pete
I DO NOT NEED DATA, I'M PRETTY SURE I'M RIGHT!!!!

You think something is true, and that's good enough for you.

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question
« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2022, 09:56:11 PM »
Tron,

What progress has been made in FE science in the past few years?I have seen several FE fails on youtube and in "Behind the Curve". I have not seen any equation, experiment, or even idea that proves FE.

When I first became aware of FE, I asked a group of FEs what they all agreed on. The only thing they all agreed on was that the earth is not round, not one single detail of FE that has been agreed, described, proved and achieved consensus. At first, the main activity of FE was speculation, "Well, it could be this, or it could be that". Stratalites, tethered gps balloons, perspective/vanishing point, etc. In the wiki, everything is "could be", "most FEs think that ...", FE is forever stuck in speculation, where the FE idea solves one issue directly but that solution is inconsistent with other things.

WHen I started, FE had "Feels like it is stationary and looks flat", Michaelson/Morley, the light bends and measurement is broken (without explanation, experiment, or equation). It is still stuck there and will be forever.

And then there is the FE map, which ought to be easy. We know distances between cities by airline schedule, gps, odometer, astral navigation, etc. Just get a sheet of paper, select a scale to fit, and plot it. Yet the wiki has the same maps it had years ago, none disqualified and none are right.

What progress has been made?
"Electromagnetic Acceleration" sounds so much more sciency than "bendy light".

*

Offline Tron

  • *
  • Posts: 366
    • View Profile
Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question
« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2022, 10:36:30 PM »
Jimster, I'll speak to you from a personal perspective.    Few years ago I was a regular guy who had a basic education in science.   I became aware through friends and youtube that people genuinely thought the earth was flat.   A compelling idea, which over the years I've investigated. 

 I've been able to find tons of information about Flat Earth Theory.  Our own TFES website has a lengthy library of information that's growing.  Youtube has seen an explosion in FE content...   Globebusters is now educating people on Electrical Currents and how they produce Weight and Direction.  They even explain how Flying Discs work within this framework  :o    FlatEarth24/7 is always on air etc..

Millions of people are at least talking about the subject.

And obviously from my own perspective, using the wealth of all science RE and FE alike, I've been able to seriously advance my understanding of the Cosmo's. 

However, you have raised an interesting point.   I do feel there's a problem with close-mindedness or group think perhaps that's preventing and even strangling the progress of science and new people with new faces.  Flat Earth and Round Earthers are both guilty of this. I don't know how to solve it other than cautiously move forward.  I do believe humans are destined for scientific advancement and FE has a role in that.
What if earth is flat but looks round?

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 1050
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Quote from: Ironic Pete
I DO NOT NEED DATA, I'M PRETTY SURE I'M RIGHT!!!!

You think something is true, and that's good enough for you.

Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question
« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2022, 05:40:23 PM »
I do feel there's a problem with close-mindedness or group think perhaps that's preventing and even strangling the progress of science and new people with new faces.
Science is producing new results faster then ever.  NASA generates somewhere around 12TB of data per day to add to their 24PB collection.   Roughly a third of that daily torrent is earth science data .  The James Webb Space Telescope will certainly produce many new discoveries and result in both answers and new questions.  New scientists join this great quest for knowledge all the time.  The joy and excitement from both young and old on the JWST project shown on the various videos as the first images were received was positively infectious.  Other areas of research are producing amazing things as well (at the opposite end of the size scale CERN is having a bit of a renaissance).  Upsetting the status-quo is difficult, but it happens all the time by doing good science.

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question
« Reply #19 on: July 29, 2022, 10:59:05 PM »
Space travel/NASA deniers, all the images from James Webb and Hubble, many gigabytes daily, how was all that created? By a small group of conspirators?

Is it closed minded to think that water is 2 hydrogen atoms bound to an oxygen atom? F=MA? A thrown object makes a parabola described by a quadratic equation? The brain thinks and the stomach digests? The scientific meaning of the word "theory" is a explanation together with the math and experiments to confirm it duplicated by others. There are many such theories that not only have survived but have many practical uses that reconfirm them daily.

Or perhaps I should get up every morning and figure out the whole world anew, after all, I could have made a mistake yesterday? Come to think of it, anything might be wrong, so maybe I should admit I can't know anything because I could be wrong?

Personally, I choose to treat atoms and molecules, F=MA, pretty much anything they teach in high school or undergrad college as true, it has been looked at by millions, confirmed a billion times. Iif you find "feels stationary, looks flat" and Michaelson-Morley as proof that the earth is not round, then I don't know how light bends and measurement is broken and I have no map. FE pretty much means we don't/can't "know" anything, as FEs don't agree on anything other than the earth is flat.

All that establishment mainstream science has produced nuclear reactors, petrochemical fertilizers, airplanes, gps, etc etc etc. FE has produced many maps, all clearly incorrect. Who are you going with?
"Electromagnetic Acceleration" sounds so much more sciency than "bendy light".