The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: flatearthexpert on January 30, 2021, 08:06:13 PM
-
Please comment with an explanation for why you voted as you did.
If you think Earth is rising, please explain what you think is causing it to rise.
-
No flat earth spinning model?
-
@metatron
I was really surprised by that too! It was my first post on this site, to tom, essentially arguing "how hard is it for flat earth supporters to integrate/accept a rotating plane?". At the time it seemed a LOT simpler than the alternatives (such as aether, or things even more arcane/obscure).
I know better now, but I did not then.
The earth is stationary, and I argue that regardless of conceptions we should all arbitrarily agree to that by convention for sanity and simplicities sake.
-
It's a common point of confusion, especially among people who ignore the mainstream FE movement and who gathered the brunt of their understanding from Eric "Dubay" and others on Twitter. Unfortunately, it leads them into an extremely simplistic view of FET, and one that brings us some bad rep.
-
5 voters for the idea that Earth is rising, yet not a single proposed explanation for what would cause that or how that works...
if you think Earth is spinning, please explain why you think that and what is causing that as well...
The notion that Earth is stationary still seems most plausible, since no coherent argument for motion, of any kind, has been made yet.
To reiterate, what causes this alleged rise of Earth?
-
The Earth's acceleration is plainly measurable by an accelerometer. You can also have a read through https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
Meanwhile, it is the idea that "things just fall down because they do, it's an inherent thing!" is the one that lacks any coherent argumentation. You're just a (possibly indirect) victim of Dubay's profiteering, unfortunate as it may be.
-
The Earth's acceleration is plainly measurable by an accelerometer. You can also have a read through https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
Not sure if this is straying too far adrift from the topic Pete, but that wiki article is flawed in several areas. The most striking is this complete misunderstanding of what power and force are:
The power source for gravity, which allows mass to pull mass, however, should be all around us, and its mystery inexcusable. Why should something that is allegedly all around us be undetectable by all of science?
Power, or the rate of doing work, is only required to exert a force over a distance. Simply exerting a force on something requires no power at all. So an object falling from a tower requires energy, yes, but that energy is merely the energy put into it by whatever carried it up the tower. In cases where the force doesn’t move the object, or where the movement is perpendicular to the force, such as in orbital mechanics, then no energy is required.
To accelerate the earth in a linear direction, and indeed presumably the sun, moon, and everything else, however, would require an enormous amount of energy.
-
The Earth's acceleration is plainly measurable by an accelerometer. You can also have a read through https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
Meanwhile, it is the idea that "things just fall down because they do, it's an inherent thing!" is the one that lacks any coherent argumentation. You're just a (possibly indirect) victim of Dubay's profiteering, unfortunate as it may be.
Pete you have avoided my question twice now.
What is causing Earth to rise? You have yet to offer a single explanation, plausible or not.
As to your ignorance about inherent functions, aka fundamental interactions, physicists already recognize multiple. We could debate which ones are and are not more plausible, but the notion of something being a fundamental function of our reality is well founded and in no way incoherent. You may want to do some research on this subject.
-
@flatearthexpert
You seem to be a little confused about how forums work. When you put forward a question, it is (by default) directed at all the people in the forum - not a particular person. Pete isn't avoiding your question, nor was it addressed to them in particular.
What is causing Earth to rise?
The presumptive answer is the same miraculous and unscientific magic that causes all matter to spontaneously accelerate permanently (as described by popular incorrect equation)
The "cause" in both cases is a placeholder for actual science which has never materialized. In the presumptive view, that placeholder is called "gravity" and in the tfes view it is called "UA" and may well have intrinsic connections to "EA" as well.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the presumptive view is "solid" and therefore other conceptions are not.
-
The presumptive answer is the same miraculous and unscientific magic that causes all matter to spontaneously accelerate permanently (as described by popular incorrect equation)
What incorrect equation is that?
There is nothing magic or unscientific about gravity. If you are confused about how it 'accelerates permanently' that is simple to answer, it doesn't.
You need to think of gravity the same way you do with magnets. They appear to 'pull' on each other without any apparent energy input, just as two objects appear to 'pull' on each other due to gravity. But in both cases they are not using any magic or anything miraculous.
-
@jss
You need to think of gravity the same way you do with magnets.
That doesn't exactly help any. At least magnetism is manifestly real (manipulable, generatable etc.), but because it is energy it is constantly exhausted. Gravitation is inexhaustible currently, not for the least of reasons that it is non-real and undefined (as always).
Perpetual acceleration costs energy, but gravity doesn't wane over time as far as we know / can measure (unlike magnetic fields which demonstrably do). Matter doesn't self-annihilate (or cool, etc.) to balance the bill - again as far as we know. There is no proposed mechanism for this loss/expenditure of energy, just as there is no proposed mechanism at all.
But in both cases they are not using any magic or anything miraculous.
On this we are in complete agreement. Though I think we are also in agreement that they are, undeniably, miraculous. One of them is just demonstrably real, and the other isn't. I agree they are both poorly understood.
-
@jss
You need to think of gravity the same way you do with magnets.
That doesn't exactly help any. At least magnetism is manifestly real (manipulable, generatable etc.), but because it is energy it is constantly exhausted. Gravitation is inexhaustible currently, not for the least of reasons that it is non-real and undefined (as always).
Perpetual acceleration costs energy, but gravity doesn't wane over time as far as we know / can measure (unlike magnetic fields which demonstrably do). Matter doesn't self-annihilate (or cool, etc.) to balance the bill - again as far as we know. There is no proposed mechanism for this loss/expenditure of energy, just as there is no proposed mechanism at all.
But in both cases they are not using any magic or anything miraculous.
On this we are in complete agreement. Though I think we are also in agreement that they are, undeniably, miraculous. One of them is just demonstrably real, and the other isn't. I agree they are both poorly understood.
How would pulling 5 G's in an inverted loop in a fighter jet not be demonstrable of some of the forces a play when it comes to gravity? What alternate explanation might there be for a pilot under those circumstances?
-
@jss
You need to think of gravity the same way you do with magnets.
That doesn't exactly help any. At least magnetism is manifestly real (manipulable, generatable etc.), but because it is energy it is constantly exhausted. Gravitation is inexhaustible currently, not for the least of reasons that it is non-real and undefined (as always).
Perpetual acceleration costs energy, but gravity doesn't wane over time as far as we know / can measure (unlike magnetic fields which demonstrably do). Matter doesn't self-annihilate (or cool, etc.) to balance the bill - again as far as we know. There is no proposed mechanism for this loss/expenditure of energy, just as there is no proposed mechanism at all.
But in both cases they are not using any magic or anything miraculous.
On this we are in complete agreement. Though I think we are also in agreement that they are, undeniably, miraculous. One of them is just demonstrably real, and the other isn't. I agree they are both poorly understood.
Force is not energy, nor does physics require force to be a finite commodity, or to have a ‘source’. Force only expends energy (or if we’re being picky, converts it from one form to another), if it moves over a distance, when it becomes ‘work done’. Centripetal force does not require work to be done because the force is at 90 degrees to the movement, and thus the distance travelled in the direction of the force is zero.
-
@jss
You need to think of gravity the same way you do with magnets.
That doesn't exactly help any. At least magnetism is manifestly real (manipulable, generatable etc.), but because it is energy it is constantly exhausted. Gravitation is inexhaustible currently, not for the least of reasons that it is non-real and undefined (as always).
This is a misunderstanding of how magnets (and gravity) work.
How exactly are magnets being 'constantly exhausted'?
If I put a magnet on my fridge it doesn't wear out and fall off.
If you hold two magnets close together you will have to constantly put effort into keeping them apart. No matter how long you wait, the pull won't decrease, they don't wear out or 'expend energy' trying to come together.
-
If I put a magnet on my fridge it doesn't wear out and fall off.
This is incorrect. While the process is slow, magnets do wear out over time.
-
If I put a magnet on my fridge it doesn't wear out and fall off.
This is incorrect. While the process is slow, magnets do wear out over time.
True, but it’s not because a finite store of energy is being depleted by the exertion of a force. As I said above, forces only do work if they operate over a distance. That’s why bridges and buildings don’t need fuel to hold up their loads. They are exerting a force, but not doing work, so there is nothing being depleted.
-
If I put a magnet on my fridge it doesn't wear out and fall off.
This is incorrect. While the process is slow, magnets do wear out over time.
Yeah, I was expecting this. :)
Magnets degrade, this is different than the magnetic energy being 'used up' when attracting each other or metal objects.
Magnets degrade over time due to entropy as the magnetic domains randomly fall out of alignment, this is not the same as burning fuel or consuming electricity.
Magnets do not expend energy to hold themselves or other objects in place. Again, if you hold two magnets close together in your hands you have to strain to keep them apart, but they are not expending any energy. Just like holding a rock over the surface of the Earth isn't causing the rock to expend energy to pull downward.
Both magnets and rocks will continue to pull without using any energy until another process degrades their physical structures. Magnetic domains flipping, or the atoms spontaneously decaying in normal matter.
Edit:
Actually, forget all that. The magnetic fields do NOT decay for a simple reason. A magnet's field is made up of tiny diopoles all aligned in the same direction. When a magnet 'degrades', those dipoles simply get randomized directions, but the magnetic fields do not go away, they are just disorganized. The magnet will always contain the same amount of magnetic force, it's simply the directions that alter.
So magnetic force is never used up, it's just pointed in other directions. There is no energy expenditure for a magnet to exert a force. I think that's a more concise argument than my first above. This is why waiting to post is never a bad idea...
-
@flatearthexpert
You seem to be a little confused about how forums work. When you put forward a question, it is (by default) directed at all the people in the forum - not a particular person. Pete isn't avoiding your question, nor was it addressed to them in particular.
Negative. I posed the question to all. But Pete responded once, avoiding the question.
Then I replied to him, and reiterated the question.
And he proceeded to avoid it again and instead resorted to a random and unsubstantiated attempt at a personal attack.
So I then asked him again, and he has now avoided it a third time, by responding to others in the thread but ignoring my now oft repeated question.
To be fair, nobody has offered an explanation for what causes Earth to allegedly rise. (because there isn't one)
So it's not just Pete.
but the fact that he adamantly claims there is much evidence for a rising Earth, despite any explanation for the cause of this alleged rise, warrants my repeated questioning of his (and the society's) apparent position on the matter.
The reason I find this to be important is because I know many people who have looked into flat earth, and have been turned away by positions they have come across on this website. the faq page discusses UA at length and yet offers not a single plausible explanation for it.
So when people like Pete repeat this nonsense about UA, unable to posit even a single possible theory for it's cause, I have no choice but to call them out.
I would welcome Pete, or any of the voters in favor of UA, to please explain what they think is causing this incredible alleged upwards acceleration.
-
You are, quite deliberately, reframing the question. You asked what evidence there is for UA, and I provided you both with our documentation and an immediate experiment (use an accelerometer) to verify it. The cause of something being unknown (or, as of yet, only partially ascertained) does not preclude it from happening.
I understand that you dislike UA, and my invitation for you to provide a documentation of your own model, as an alternative to mainstream FET, remains open.
Magnets degrade, this is different than the magnetic energy being 'used up' when attracting each other or metal objects.
I don't disagree with you, but it does make the whole magnet analogy completely useless - if you "think about gravity as you would about magnets", you're gonna end up with a mangled understanding of gravity. They work for entirely different reasons, behave completely differently, and they do degrade (regardless of the cause, and regardless of the cutesie argument that we should ignore the net force of the actual magnet and instead just blindly sum scalar forces of individual particles). Your argument would stand better on its own, simply by discussing the RE gravitational model without the comparison.
-
On a more serious note, I have an idea to explain gravity and why the earth moves without any of us noticing it. Beneath the Ozone Layer, air pressure is Much greater then beyond it. There's a sharp drop off as pointed by other members discussing this topic. See "Flat earth inquiries into the firmament" https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17181.msg224307#msg224307
This helps explain why the atmosphere moves with the earth (along with friction, momentum, gravity and other phenomina) and why we can't sense it. Also keep in mind, whether the the earth is flat or round, it still tilts or turns at 15deg per hour. That's nothing, at least that we can feel.
This also helps explain why satellites can traverse such a large distance around the earth without serious energy output. RE calls it an orbit, I think it's because the higher atmospheres of gaseous liquids do move in a whirlpool around the sun (whether it's the sun inward spiralling consumption of space fuel or the earth stirring things up). Planets also orbit in such a way without an engine. They just gently float in space following the liquid current of space. This is just an idea so far, I'm really looking for more ideas.
-
On a more serious note, I have an idea to explain gravity and why the earth moves without any of us noticing it. Beneath the Ozone Layer, air pressure is Much greater then beyond it. There's a sharp drop off as pointed by other members discussing this topic. See "Flat earth inquiries into the firmament" https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17181.msg224307#msg224307
This helps explain why the atmosphere moves with the earth (along with friction, momentum, gravity and other phenomina) and why we can't sense it. Also keep in mind, whether the the earth is flat or round, it still tilts or turns at 15deg per hour. That's nothing, at least that we can feel.
This also helps explain why satellites can traverse such a large distance around the earth without serious energy output. RE calls it an orbit, I think it's because the higher atmospheres of gaseous liquids do move in a whirlpool around the sun (whether it's the sun inward spiralling consumption of space fuel or the earth stirring things up). Planets also orbit in such a way without an engine. They just gently float in space following the liquid current of space. This is just an idea so far, I'm really looking for more ideas.
Why would a satellite need much in the way of energy? Energy isn’t required to maintain a speed, it’s required to overcome a resistive force. Airliners need engines when cruising to overcome drag. There is hardly any drag at all in orbit. Satellites are given the initial kinetic energy needed for orbit by whatever launches them, and then they are pretty much good to go.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay)
-
Bob theres a host of great information in this article. It helps explain the altitude of low earth orbiting objects and how its even affected by the suns intensity. 93 miles is the distance for such objects to make one revolution around the planet in a day with little imput from the satellite.
Thanks!
-
Bob theres a host of great information in this article. It helps explain the altitude of low earth orbiting objects and how its even affected by the suns intensity. 93 miles is the distance for such objects to make one revolution around the planet in a day with little imput from the satellite.
Thanks!
You're welcome.
-
Pete, you are the one who is deliberately reframing the question... I am the one who framed the original question. Not sure why you're lying about that since anyone can verify this.
But thanks for finally addressing the question, even though you're basically just admitting there is no possible explanation for what you believe to be happening.
So yeah, I dislike UA. It's the least plausible theory. Your inability to offer even a single possible cause for it confirms how implausible it is.
-
Pete, you are the one who is deliberately reframing the question... I am the one who framed the original question.
I was specifically responding to your claim of what is and isn't plausible. One position is easily verifiable, experimentally. The other is "it just happens, duh". Neither provides a source, or cause, so discussing superiority based on that is rather impossible. If you want to discard any model that doesn't explain where the effects of gravity come from, then you're pretty much left with RE's gravitation, with all of its problems.
You wouldn't be particularly happy with me if I told you UA is "just an inherent function of our universe", for the same reason the "things just fall" theory is not popular among FE'ers.
Meanwhile, my offer for you to document your alternative model remains standing - as it did for years. It's actually somewhat amusing how keen you are to talk about what FE is not, but how reluctant you are to simply have a write-up of yours published.
-
Pete. That was quite the word vomit to avoid your inability to propose a cause for the allegation that all of Earth is rising upwards and eternally. I don't blame you for trying to distract from your position though. It's quite absurd.
I agree with Musk and Bostrom and others who say the chance of us being in base reality is one in billions. (if not trillions). Like in any simulation, the rising and falling of things is governed by programming, and is an inherent function or fundamental interaction of that simulation/reality.
There is no need for Earth to rise upwards or for it to move in the way mainstream science alleges. There is no need for it to move at all. It's implausible, impractical, and unnecessary.
I am no real fan of Dubay, as you allege without basis, because he does not discuss simulation theory. I am also no fan of you pretending to quote me when in fact you're lying about what I said. I'm happy to explain my position even though you can't explain your own.
The sooner flat earth theory meets simulation theory, the sooner more people will realize the truth about our reality. The delusion that we're in base reality is one that many don't want to let go of, but it's necessary for ascertainment of the truth. The delusion of a rising Earth is no different.
-
Okay, well, I've run out of things to say, and you're not responding to the things I have said. You now know why UA is the mainstream model (whether you choose to ignore it or not), how you can verify it to be true by yourself, and you've been informed that the offer I've made to you many years ago remains standing.
See you in a few months when you choose to start this subject from scratch again, I guess?
-
Here are the cold hard facts. By the way, speed only makes sense relativistically. You can't have a speed if you don't have something to compare it against.
1. The Earth moves at a relative speed of 66,000 miles per hour (107,000 km/hr) around the Sun, at the center of the Solar System.
2. Through local space, the Solar System moves at a relative speed of 43,000 miles per hour (70,000 km/hr) towards the star system Vega (in the Hercules Constellation).
3. The Solar System and its neighbors orbit the black hole Sag. A* at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy at a speed of 483,000 miles per hour (792,000 km/hr) in a counter-clockwise motion as viewed from galactic North.
4. Relative to the Andromeda galaxy, the Milky Way Galaxy is moving towards it at a speed of 260,000 miles per hour (402,000 km/hr). They are expected to collide in some 4.5 billion years.
5. All Galaxies in our local group are travelling towards a tremendous cluster mass of galaxies called the Great Attractor, at a mind-bending 1,342,162 miles per hour (2,160,000 km/hr)
So, as we speak and sit here typing stuff out, we are hurtling through space at over a million miles an hour towards a mysterious mass of over 1000 galaxies. Speed is just a measure of the difference between relative objects.
So, you wouldn't be totally wrong to say that the Earth is moving, possibly even accelerating, at a ridonculous rate. However, that has nothing to do with a reasoning for why objects fall on Earth.
Even small children are taught in school now that Gravity is NOT a downwards pulling Force. It is the curved geometry of spacetime itself. Newton wrongfully posited that objects that are not influenced by forces move along straight lines. Einstein corrected the theory, in fact, objects that are not influenced by forces move along geodesic curves in space time. The falling of objects has nothing to do with, and doesn't even require the application of an upwards force from below.
Whether it is the earth revolving around the Sun, or the Sun revolving around Sag A*, or Sag A* hurtling towards the Great Attractor, all things are not influenced by any force rather they are moving along geodesic curves in space that is caused by objects with great mass.
-
Okay, well, I've run out of things to say, and you're not responding to the things I have said. You now know why UA is the mainstream model (whether you choose to ignore it or not), how you can verify it to be true by yourself, and you've been informed that the offer I've made to you many years ago remains standing.
See you in a few months when you choose to start this subject from scratch again, I guess?
You still don't have a proposed cause for UA. And I disagree that UA is mainstream. I've never heard anyone argue in support of it besides yourself. It absolutely cannot be verified. Only the effects can be verified. And UA is the least plausible possible explanation.
See you in a few months when you admit you still have no possible explanation for what is causing Earth to allegedly rise.
-
Okay, well, I've run out of things to say, and you're not responding to the things I have said. You now know why UA is the mainstream model (whether you choose to ignore it or not), how you can verify it to be true by yourself, and you've been informed that the offer I've made to you many years ago remains standing.
See you in a few months when you choose to start this subject from scratch again, I guess?
How does UA explain the observed fact that the downward acceleration is different on different parts of the Earth? UA requires the entire Earth to be accelerating at the same constant and therefore we should expect to get the same downward acceleration for falling objects everywhere on Earth.
Do you have any mechanism to offer to correct this? Or is everyone who has measured a different value in on the conspiracy? ::)
-
@razatd
How does UA explain the observed fact that the downward acceleration is different on different parts of the Earth?
One way is by refuting/denying that "observed fact".
Another is by accepting that "observed fact" and attributing it to another cause - perhaps the same one that is currently pointed to - the physical/material variances of the world itself cause the local variances (just without fictional "gravity fields" which exist only in equation).
Or is everyone who has measured a different value in on the conspiracy? ::)
The people who most frequently talk about conspiracies on this site are the round earth acolytes - such as yourself and in a similar manner. The flat earth researchers most often prefer to talk about the topics at hand, which are most often considered "scientific" or in the realm of science in any case.
Your incredulity is not helping you to objectively evaluate this subject earnestly, and there is VERY good reason to do so (and it has little to do with the shape of the earth).
-
The Wiki seems to attribute tides to the gravitational attraction of the moon and stars. Additionally, the observed and documented differences in gravitational attraction in different areas on earth are also attributed to the moon & stars. This implication in the Wiki causes some problems. The mass of the moon & stars are exhibiting the property of gravity, but there is no property of gravity exhibited by the mass of the dry land of the earth. The implication is that mass of the moon & stars is different from the mass of the earth, except for the water of the oceans. Dry land of the earth has weight but no mass, while the water of the oceans has mass, but no weight. This doesn’t make any sense. Universal acceleration isn't a viable alternative to gravity. The experimental evidence (in the zetetic manner) doesn't support it either.
-
@razatd
How does UA explain the observed fact that the downward acceleration is different on different parts of the Earth?
One way is by refuting/denying that "observed fact".
Another is by accepting that "observed fact" and attributing it to another cause - perhaps the same one that is currently pointed to - the physical/material variances of the world itself cause the local variances (just without fictional "gravity fields" which exist only in equation).
Or is everyone who has measured a different value in on the conspiracy? ::)
The people who most frequently talk about conspiracies on this site are the round earth acolytes - such as yourself and in a similar manner. The flat earth researchers most often prefer to talk about the topics at hand, which are most often considered "scientific" or in the realm of science in any case.
Your incredulity is not helping you to objectively evaluate this subject earnestly, and there is VERY good reason to do so (and it has little to do with the shape of the earth).
How does the physical/material variances of the world itself cause the local variances in the acceleration of falling objects if UA necessitates that the entirety of Earth is accelerating upwards at the same rate? It makes no sense. By the way, you can not use gravity to explain it because in the Flat Earth UA replaces gravity.
Also let’s grant that There are local variances. Now the source of those variances must be UA and not gravity. That means UA is not universal anymore and parts of the Earth accelerating faster will fly off into the sky. How do you explain this?
Round Earth people talk about conspiracies? :o Give me a break. Flat Earthers flat out reject all space agencies and everything that doesn’t conform to their beliefs. Flat Earth is based on the grand conspiracy that everyone that uses the Globe Earth model is actually lying which is pretty much everyone.
-
Celestial gravitation in the wiki implies that the moon can attract the water on the earth and can cause other observed gravimetric anomalies. Gravity does exist but only between heavenly bodies and a mass on the earth. If you used a gravimeter to take a measurement you would have to take into account the position of the moon first. You could take a series of measurements at a fixed location on the earth as the moon passed overhead and expect to see some predictable changes in your readings. This doesn't happen so the idea of celestial gravitation is invalid. QED.
-
@Razatd
How does the physical/material variances of the world itself cause the local variances in the acceleration of falling objects if UA necessitates that the entirety of Earth is accelerating upwards at the same rate?
I can imagine many ways. Can't you? If you are asking how gravity works you will get an equally unsatisfying answer. In gravitation, an imagined and non-real psuedoforce, it is assumed to be the matter itself causing the variance - I see no reason why that exact same reasoning cannot be used in the case of UA. UA is mostly just a convention/sign reversal, and causes no issue for the physics (why would it?).
It makes no sense.
I more or less agree with you (in the case of UA and Gravitation which are roughly equivalent, differing by a sign change), however it CAN make more sense if you earnestly try to conceptualize it in GOOD FAITH (not from the heavily biased, and un-objective/anti-scientific, perspective that it MUST be irreconcilable/paradoxical nonsense)
By the way, you can not use gravity to explain it because in the Flat Earth UA replaces gravity.
Why not? UA IS the gravity... However I can appreciate that currently, afaik, there isn't a proposed mechanism for what UA does - but in my view that is slightly BETTER (and certainly more accommodating to new addendum / caveat as you are suggesting in this case) than the presumptive gravitational view which proposes a mechanism that is ill-defined and demonstrably non-real.
Also let’s grant that There are local variances.
Sure.
That means UA is not universal anymore and parts of the Earth accelerating faster will fly off into the sky. How do you explain this?
The UA could very well still be universal, and another interaction between that UA and the particular matter (or structure/ordering, perhaps) causes the minor variances we detect locally by the surface. It's easy to explain things - dreadfully easy. It is much more difficult to demonstrate them, and even more so to experimentally validate them to make them science! For instance, gravitation has NEVER passed such rigor and is not a part of science as a result. It is unvalidated speculation at the absolute best, and delusion at worst. Newton understood gravitation was unscientific, philosophically unsound, and anathema to all of physics when he invoked it - and you can read about it in his own pen if you wish.
Round Earth people talk about conspiracies? :o Give me a break.
Right, you come to sites like this where you wrongly assume (due to conditioned bias and propaganda) that everyone interested in studying this topic, or truly considering that the earth may be another shape than we are taught, believe in ridiculous conspiracies. The ones forwarding and assuming bizarre omnipotent conspiracies are the apologists for RE, like yourself. If you continue to study this subject, you will likely come to the same conclusion I have about it. The "flat earth conspiracy" bias helps to keep your largely unevaluated/unvalidated beliefs about the shape of the world safe from ridicule and criticism. As long as any criticism depends on an "impossible conspiracy", there is no reason to take it seriously (so you tell yourself, as a subconscious mantra no doubt) - which is why this line of "reasoning" is so heavily advertised and propagated/promoted.
No conspiracy of any size is required for humanity to be stupid and wrong as it always is (historically, contemporarily - you name it).
Flat Earthers flat out reject all space agencies and everything that doesn’t conform to their beliefs.
This is a common misunderstanding. Some do, that is true - but it has nothing to do with conforming to beliefs. A large part of flat earth research is recognizing, acutely, the difference between knowledge and belief. Belief has NO place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific. If you BELIEVE the world is round, flat, or dodecahedron - you have FAITH not fact.
The ones who more or less discard the "proof" from MIC agencies do so for valid and defensible reasons. The wiki here can help you understand some of the perspectives/conclusions of SOME of the researchers here. For instance, the TFES considers that "space agencies" are not faking the shape of the world. IF there is a conspiracy of some kind, it is conceivably quite small - and MUCH more likely to be for military purpose (what are rockets REALLY for?) - as is suggested on the wiki here. I highly recommend giving it a read through to get a sense of the wildly varying (and often incompatible) views out there!
Flat Earth is based on the grand conspiracy that everyone that uses the Globe Earth model is actually lying which is pretty much everyone.
This is yet another, heavily advertised/propagated, misconception. As I said, it is raised by people like yourself in exactly this context - most generally NOT by flat earth researchers. YOU are convinced there is some grand conspiracy required, but your reasoning is unsound and indefensible (in fact, you are just repeating someone else's criticism).
In any case, whether or not there are conspiracies involved (A conspiracy is merely a synonym for crime - planned by more than 1. They happen at all times in huge numbers.) is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant to the shape of the earth and to determining it with certainty as an individual researcher.
Even if it were true that the pictures/artwork we receive from NASA were all 100% genuine, they are not measurement of the world and they require abject appeal to authority (are unvalidated and unvalidatable), and in this case - that "authority" are, historically/repeatedly, untrustworthy MIC entities with overt military/profiteering/domination agendas.
-
Even if it were true that the pictures/artwork we receive from NASA were all 100% genuine, they are not measurement of the world and they require abject appeal to authority (are unvalidated and unvalidatable), and in this case - historically/repeatedly untrustworthy MIC entities with military/domination agendas.
NASA and other space agencies/companies take a mountain of measurements as well as produce pictures/artwork. Why are you not including measurements in your 100% genuine hypothesis?
-
@Stack
NASA and other space agencies/companies take a mountain of measurements as well as produce pictures/artwork. Why are you not including measurements in your 100% genuine hypothesis?
There is no hypothesis being discussed here. I care a lot about science, and it hurts me when people abuse terminology. Hypothesis, in a scientific context, has a rigorous and inflexible definition (as well as a singular purpose).
It is true that there is a lot of measurement conducted by those agencies/affiliates. As an independent researcher, you can evaluate and trust any dataset you wish - but the onus is on you to validate it before accepting it as true.
For this reason, many independent researchers choose to avoid datasets that require abject appeal to authority (especially from overtly untrustworthy MIC entities) and cannot be validated/verified independently.
Why should determining the shape of the earth require blind faith in anything? Are you saying we can't know the shape of the earth with certainty without blindly trusting data/sources we can't verify independently?
-
Why should determining the shape of the earth require blind faith in anything? Are you saying we can't know the shape of the earth with certainty without blindly trusting data/sources we can't verify independently?
Good point. I've driven and flown to enough places on the planet to verify that the distances reported are indeed accurate, by personal observation. These distances are comparable with a round Earth, but don't fit any of the Flat Earth maps.
I've also done stick and shadow measurements, by myself and with friends across the globe, and untold hours of stargazing and solar and lunar observations. All of it fits with the model of a round Earth orbiting a star, and the moon orbiting the Earth.
I've measured the curvature by various methods of viewing distant objects and verifying how much should be hidden. By seeing the horizon drop by the expected amount as I gain altitude.
Only one model supports all my own personal, independent observations, the round one.
So by my own personal experience I know the Earth is round. No faith required, blind or otherwise.
-
I can imagine many ways. Can't you? If you are asking how gravity works you will get an equally unsatisfying answer. In gravitation, an imagined and non-real psuedoforce, it is assumed to be the matter itself causing the variance - I see no reason why that exact same reasoning cannot be used in the case of UA. UA is mostly just a convention/sign reversal, and causes no issue for the physics (why would it?).
The matter itself causes the variance...but you're saying that matter can't exert that kind of force. You can't have it both ways. Either matter can't exert such tiny forces and gravity is in fact caused by us constantly accelerating, along with all the visible celestial bodies, via some mysterious and unexplained energy source which oddly imparts no heat to us whatsoever, or it is entirely possible for mass to attract mass, in a way that aligns with a huge swath of measurements, from the microscopic to the planetary.
Why do you find it so hard believe that mass could attract mass? Do you accept that magnetism is real? That electrical charges attract and repel? Why then not mass? The only difference is the magnitude of the force, which is far, far less than other forces. What is it about your observations of the world around you that makes it so hard to find gravity credible?
-
@Stack
NASA and other space agencies/companies take a mountain of measurements as well as produce pictures/artwork. Why are you not including measurements in your 100% genuine hypothesis?
There is no hypothesis being discussed here. I care a lot about science, and it hurts me when people abuse terminology. Hypothesis, in a scientific context, has a rigorous and inflexible definition (as well as a singular purpose).
Oh, just stop with your constant holier than thou "I alone know what is right and credible" and all those who differ are committing a mortal sin against the very foundations of scientific exploration, Your "caring" is neither here nor there. Your hypocrisy, on the other hand, is very evident. You get all fired up over word usage here yet you defend on the other site where someone makes up their own definitions to words like "mass" & "volume" just because it suits their theory. Enough with your caring. It's beyond pedantic and completely self-adulating.
It is true that there is a lot of measurement conducted by those agencies/affiliates. As an independent researcher, you can evaluate and trust any dataset you wish - but the onus is on you to validate it before accepting it as true.
For this reason, many independent researchers choose to avoid datasets that require abject appeal to authority (especially from overtly untrustworthy MIC entities) and cannot be validated/verified independently.
And there you go again with the hypocrisy. Out of one side of your mouth you say a conspiracy is not relevant to the flat earth notion and out of the other you continually pepper in MIC's and their untrustworthiness. Which means multitudes of people are lying. Equals conspiracy. Not to mention how you always claim that explanations that you disagree with come from incompetent scientists. Really? They're all incompetent? Because you don't agree with them?
And as for personally validating/verifying any of your contrary thinking, what have you done to do so? How have you validated/verified all of your dislikes of mainstream science? So far you just seem to appeal to the authority of yourself.
Why should determining the shape of the earth require blind faith in anything? Are you saying we can't know the shape of the earth with certainty without blindly trusting data/sources we can't verify independently?
I never said it should be blind faith. Personally, as JSS mentioned, I, like many, have flown/traveled to many places far and wide. All of my travel distances, durations, routes have equaled what is represented on Globe earth maps. No Flat earth model, if there really even is one, has even come close to being accurate. That alone, without the aid of "untrustworthy" conspiring MICs and the appeal to the bevy of incompetent physicists, validates/verifies to me what is what.
-
How does UA explain the observed fact that the downward acceleration is different on different parts of the Earth?
The variance in gravity is largely attributed to gravitational forces. Please, familiarise yourself with the basics before posting here. We're not to read out the Wiki out loud to you.
Or is everyone who has measured a different value in on the conspiracy? ::)
If you want to shitpost, do so in the appropriate board. This is the third (and consequently last) time I will ask you so nicely.
-
From the Wiki:
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction of objects of mass on Earth to heavenly bodies. this is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.
The Wiki explains why the earth could be moving upwards (universal acceleration) but results in lots of other unexplained problems.
The Wiki proclamation says a heavenly body has a special property that can attract an object of mass on the earth that an object of mass on the Earth doesn't exhibit (selective gravitation). I am speculating that the Flat Earth Theory would imply that the source of this selectivity property of heavenly bodies is unknown. Since the Sun and Moon could be classified as 'heavenly bodies' they must exhibit the property of gravitational attraction between all the other 'heavenly bodies'. It has been stated that the Sun & Moon orbit around the center of gravity of the Sun, Moon, and all the other planets. This wouldn't happen if the traditional equation of gravitational force were applied. I couldn't find another equation in the Wiki to justify all the Celestial Gravitation properties so it looks like the Wiki needs to be updated. It would also be nice to have an explanation for the unique properties of mass of the heavenly bodies that can exhibit gravitational forces when a mass on the earth does not.
-
From the Wiki:
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction of objects of mass on Earth to heavenly bodies. this is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.
The Wiki explains why the earth could be moving upwards (universal acceleration) but results in lots of other unexplained problems.
The Wiki proclamation says a heavenly body has a special property that can attract an object of mass on the earth that an object of mass on the Earth doesn't exhibit (selective gravitation). I am speculating that the Flat Earth Theory would imply that the source of this selectivity property of heavenly bodies is unknown. Since the Sun and Moon could be classified as 'heavenly bodies' they must exhibit the property of gravitational attraction between all the other 'heavenly bodies'. It has been stated that the Sun & Moon orbit around the center of gravity of the Sun, Moon, and all the other planets. This wouldn't happen if the traditional equation of gravitational force were applied. I couldn't find another equation in the Wiki to justify all the Celestial Gravitation properties so it looks like the Wiki needs to be updated. It would also be nice to have an explanation for the unique properties of mass of the heavenly bodies that can exhibit gravitational forces when a mass on the earth does not.
That is such an ad hoc explanation for the local variances. At one hand FEers deny gravity because we don’t yet understand exactly what it is and on the other hand they use it in more extraordinary ways. Why do only celestial bodies exert gravity? Why is this gravity fine but the normal gravity rejected?
Let’s grant that this special gravity exists. Why then do we observe consistently higher gravity acceleration values near mountains? Why is the Earth gravity acceleration map so complex if UA causes same acceleration and only spherical disturbances are caused by the two celestial bodies?
By the way, if you want to reject the gravity acceleration data, you need to provide strong evidence that something is wrong with it otherwise you can’t disagree that you need a grand conspiracy.
-
Let’s grant that this special gravity exists. Why then do we observe consistently higher gravity acceleration values near mountains?
This isn't strictly correct. The largest gravity anomalies are in areas where there are accumulations of dense (oceanic) crust: the highs align with mid-oceanic ridges, hot spots (Hawaii and Iceland) and the flanks of trenches. Technically, these kind of count as mountains too...
Continental mountain ranges themselves often (but not always, depending on the nature of the orogenic event) have lower comparative gravity signal in large areas because the rocks comprising the peaks are commonly made of less dense, lithified former sea floor sediments. These mountain rocks then sit above the denser underlying crustal rocks making their effect on felt gravitational pull less.
-
How does UA explain the observed fact that the downward acceleration is different on different parts of the Earth?
The variance in gravity is largely attributed to gravitational forces. Please, familiarise yourself with the basics before posting here. We're not to read out the Wiki out loud to you.
Pete - the Wiki simultaneously declares that variations in gravity are caused by celestial bodies exerting some kind of gravitational force on the earth and also that variations in gravity do not in fact exist because gravity doesn't exist and it is ridiculous to assert that it does. Before trashing people for not understanding the wiki, it would be helpful if you could collectively agree on a stance to take. Either measured gravity does vary in different locations on the planet, in which case let's talk about why it does, or you think it doesn't, in which case let's talk about why you think all the measurements supporting that are wrong.
As an aside, the wiki interpretation of various famous experiments, such as Eötvös, is just plain embarrassing. Eötvös was an experimental proof of the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass, meaning that the 'M' in both was indeed the same thing. The 'no difference' found in the experiment did not mean 'no gravity found', as the wiki implies. Likewise, the 'no deviation from the inverse square' mentioned later on the wiki does not mean 'no gravity' or 'no local variations in gravity', but rather adds to the many proofs supporting the fact the force between two masses depends on their 'M' and the inverse of the square of the distance between them.
-
Let’s grant that this special gravity exists. Why then do we observe consistently higher gravity acceleration values near mountains?
This isn't strictly correct. The largest gravity anomalies are in areas where there are accumulations of dense (oceanic) crust: the highs align with mid-oceanic ridges, hot spots (Hawaii and Iceland) and the flanks of trenches. Technically, these kind of count as mountains too...
Continental mountain ranges themselves often (but not always, depending on the nature of the orogenic event) have lower comparative gravity signal in large areas because the rocks comprising the peaks are commonly made of less dense, lithified former sea floor sediments. These mountain rocks then sit above the denser underlying crustal rocks making their effect on felt gravitational pull less.
I agree with you that is true. I should have done proper research before making that claim. However, I believe the point still stands. Why does the density of landmass dictate the local variances in the downward pull if in fact it is the celestial bodies that are causing the variances according to FEers.
-
From the Wiki:
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction of objects of mass on Earth to heavenly bodies. this is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.
The Wiki quote is a bit sneaky. It does use the term Celestial Gravitation to justify things like tides and other anomalies but does, technically, leave the door open for attraction between objects of mass on the Earth. The quote only says that Celestial Gravitation does not IMPLY the attraction between objects of mass on the Earth, but does not rule them out either. You have to read between the lines of the wiki some more because there are gravimetric anomalies across the 'Earth's plane' that are due to Celestial Gravitation, but those anomalies are in the minority. Gravimetric studies are not conducted to see what's in the heavens, but to locate mass differentials in the Earth that can lead to the location of oil, gas, or other sought after minerals. In many cases after a gravimetric study has been conducted, a core drilling program is carried out, and if everything goes well the results lead to the oil or minerals sought. This proves that objects of mass on the surface of the earth can be gravitationally attracted by an other mass below the Earth's surface.
All the nice gravimetric maps wouldn't be possible if universal acceleration was valid. The effects of the Sun & Moon are eliminated as much as possible because the gravitational attraction information they provide isn't desired. The information desired is the gravimetric anomalies produced by the changes of mass density below the surface of the earth.
-
Before trashing people for not understanding the wiki, it would be helpful if you could collectively agree on a stance to take.
Why would we do that? Multiple competing models exist, and the Wiki's job is to document the past and present of the Flat Earth Theory. If you don't understand the purpose of the resource you're reading, you're going to have a bad time.
Some, like Tom, question the measurability of these effects as a whole. Others, like myself, propose an explanation, without necessarily disagreeing with Tom. If you have measured a variation in gravity, and if UA is true, then it is rather obvious that the variation you have measured did not come from UA, but rather gravitation. It's not a "problem with UA" as RE sycophants will gleefully claim, it's just an additional, external factor. This isn't complicated.
You will also note RonJ's immediate attempt at reframing the discussion - he moved away from "gravitational forces" to "the Sun and Moon", specifically, and others like Raza immediately fell for it. Anything to keep the fantasy going, I guess.
-
Before trashing people for not understanding the wiki, it would be helpful if you could collectively agree on a stance to take.
Why would we do that? Multiple competing models exist, and the Wiki's job is to document the past and present of the Flat Earth Theory. If you don't understand the purpose of the resource you're reading, you're going to have a bad time.
Some, like Tom, question the measurability of these effects as a whole. Others, like myself, propose an explanation, without necessarily disagreeing with Tom. If you have measured a variation in gravity, and if UA is true, then it is rather obvious that the variation you have measured did not come from UA, but rather gravitation. It's not a "problem with UA" as RE sycophants will gleefully claim, it's just an additional, external factor. This isn't complicated.
You will also note RonJ's immediate attempt at reframing the discussion - he moved away from "gravitational forces" to "the Sun and Moon", specifically, and others like Raza immediately fell for it. Anything to keep the fantasy going, I guess.
My point is that you told somebody to 'familiarise themselves with the wiki', but yet the part of the wiki you referred to earlier doesn't address the point - it covers UA, but doesn't mention variations in local g measurements. Furthermore, different parts of the wiki contradict each other on this subject - some bits say there are variations, others say there aren't. The reason people ridicule the wiki is because it is ridiculous - if you want to say it's a summary of competing theories and models, then fine - but in that case don't have each page written as if it is the 'truth'. If you want it to be a proposal for a coherent set of arguments, then the internal contradictions need to be removed.
[edited for a typo]
-
If you have measured a variation in gravity, and if UA is true, then it is rather obvious that the variation you have measured did not come from UA, but rather gravitation.
Well, it comes from something. I'd suggest the starting point is that the something is unknown.
You may suggest Celestial Gravitation as the something. OK. But that's a hypothesis. That should be just the start. In order to find out whether that hypothesis has any weight you need to make the hypothesis a bit more useful than the single paragraph on the Wiki which basically just says "some people think this is a thing".
If "Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides" (quote from the Wiki) then that's a good start. The tides can be directly measured. So does that correlate with the movements of any known celestial bodies in a way that you can make predictions with it? Right now all you've got is that you think this is a thing. But it's a strange thing because if the claim is that the celestial bodies pull on things like oceans then why don't the celestial bodies pull on each other? If they did then surely they'd attract and hit each other. Unless this is part of a stable orbit of course like the earth-moon system in RE? And why don't the things, like oceans, pull back on the celestial bodies (if they did then surely they'd fall on us).
This is what makes it feels like an ad-hoc invention rather than a well rounded (pun not intended, but I'll take it now I've realised) theory
In RE gravity isn't just some vague hypothesis. It has a mathematical framework which is able to make predictions. Neptune was discovered because Uranus wasn't behaving as it should from the calculations. That indicated that another body beyond it was acting on it, and so it proved. And gravity has more practical applications on earth:
Like magnetic surveys, gravity surveys use precise instruments to measure the strength of gravity at various places. This allows geologists to create maps of the density of the crust below our feet. This method is particularly effective at accurately spotting oil deposits. However, they also have applications in mining.
Gravity surveys have been used, with great success, to locate diamonds. Diamonds typically are found in characteristic kimberlite pipes that are dense compared to nearby rocks, leading to a spike in the local gravity.
http://www.gemsys.ca/all/magnetometers/magnets-gravity-used-mineral-exploration/
This is where the RE model wins. It has practical applications and can make predictions which validate the model.
In FE it seems like when observations don't match the model then either an ad-hoc explanation is invented or the observation is simply denied.
-
Why should determining the shape of the earth require blind faith in anything? Are you saying we can't know the shape of the earth with certainty without blindly trusting data/sources we can't verify independently?
Good point. I've driven and flown to enough places on the planet to verify that the distances reported are indeed accurate, by personal observation. These distances are comparable with a round Earth, but don't fit any of the Flat Earth maps.
This entire statement is objectively false.
Any map you have used is flat.
-
This entire statement is objectively false.
Any map you have used is flat.
Indeed. And therefore every map of the entire earth, or even large parts of it, is inaccurate.
Because there is no way of perfectly mapping a sphere onto a flat plane. Something has to give.
Were the earth flat of course then that wouldn't be a problem, you'd be able to make a map of the entire earth which accurately depicts shapes and distances.
-
Why should determining the shape of the earth require blind faith in anything? Are you saying we can't know the shape of the earth with certainty without blindly trusting data/sources we can't verify independently?
Good point. I've driven and flown to enough places on the planet to verify that the distances reported are indeed accurate, by personal observation. These distances are comparable with a round Earth, but don't fit any of the Flat Earth maps.
This entire statement is objectively false.
Any map you have used is flat.
It is not 'objectively false'. Nobody is saying that you can't have flat maps. Let go of the straw man. He has thrown in the towel. Well done.
What we are saying is that flat maps of a round earth have limitations, depending on the projection used. You might be able to measure headings accurately, for example, or not. You might be able to measure distances accurately, as long as they aren't too large, or not. Or maybe they have lat/long markings on them, in which case you (or a computer) can calculate great circle distances with great precision, and maybe get a list of suitable headings to follow for that great circle (great circle headings aren't usually constant).
The point is that these dimensions and headings work perfectly. They correlate perfectly with celestial observations, with magnetic bearings, and with speed/distance/time calculations. Nobody has ever navigated correctly with a recent round earth map and found a massive error - flights and ships get where they are going just fine. And yet the FE maps shown in the wiki, and elsewhere, all require massive distortions of the known world, which would put even simple car journeys at odds with the observed reality.
-
My point is that you told somebody to 'familiarise themselves with the wiki'
That wasn't quite my request, was it? Can we at the very least agree on the words that I wrote? Surely this isn't asking for much.
You may suggest Celestial Gravitation as the something.
I may not - that would crumble under even the most basic scrutiny, and, well, that's just not how I roll. It was RonJ who suggested that. You can make an educated guess as to how much time I want to spend on RonJ's delusions.
In RE gravity isn't just some vague hypothesis. It has a mathematical framework which is able to make predictions.
Predictions which we know to be false. By your logic, this rules out gravitation (please don't use it interchangeably with gravity - the distinction is crucial in this debate) as currently defined as the potential cause. Does that mean the Earth is flat? No. But it does mean we should probably stop acting as if gravitation was in any way a superior model.
-
The flat earth theory pontificates that the heavenly bodies have a property of attractive force on all objects of mass located the Earth and this property has been assigned the term Celestial Gravitation. Effectively, the term Gravity has been relegated to a property of mass that doesn't exist under the flat earth theory because the proclamation has been made that there is no attractive properties of mass when that mass is located on the Earth. The former term Gravity meant that ANY object of mass would exhibit an attractive force between any other object of mass regardless of it's location in the universe. The Wiki does doesn't claim one way or the other that a heavenly body contains any material that has mass. So Celestial Gravitation could be a completely new (and/or fictional) selective property of mass that has attractive properties depending upon where that mass is located.
It's fine that the flat earth theory could make such an outrageous postulation but it's completely unsupportable by any gravimetric study made and these studies are probably made somewhere on the earth every day. If the flat earth supporters what to support the zetetic mantra then they have to believe that the earth is round. QED
-
My point is that you told somebody to 'familiarise themselves with the wiki'
That wasn't quite my request, was it? Can we at the very least agree on the words that I wrote? Surely this isn't asking for much.
True enough - I paraphrased you in a way I thought was representative of the general thrust of your comment:
The variance in gravity is largely attributed to gravitational forces. Please, familiarise yourself with the basics before posting here. We're not to read out the Wiki out loud to you.
Apologies if you think that was unfair. I'd say my broader point still stands - you made an assertion about UA and gravitational forces and then referred him to the wiki. But which bit of the wiki would you 'read out loud' to somebody who wanted to know about UA but was too lazy to read it themselves? Because the UA section doesn't say what you said in that comment, and other sections directly contradict the bit that does.
-
I'd say my broader point still stands
Your broader point is an abuse of my brevity. I haven't referred anyone to the Wiki - I told them to familiarise themselves with the basics. "I won't read the Wiki for you" could easily be substituted with "I won't do your homework for you" (Oh, but Pete, there is no homework section on this website! How could someone possibly do homework that doesn't exist? This is a very serious contradiction, and I will demand to discuss it now!), for example.
And, for people like RazaTD (who simply come down here and post a deluge of nonsensical questions they think are "gotchas"), the Wiki would be a good starting point. Sure, it's not perfect, and some branching out to old threads and other FE resources will be necessary, but gosh darn it if I waste any more time on your insincere defence of permanoobs permanoobing.
-
And, for people like RazaTD (who simply come down here and post a deluge of nonsensical questions they think are "gotchas"), the Wiki would be a good starting point. Sure, it's not perfect, and some branching out to old threads and other FE resources will be necessary, but gosh darn it if I waste any more time on your insincere defence of permanoobs permanoobing.
I think it's more fundamental than that. If its authors wish to be taken seriously, then the wiki needs to be either one of two things. It can either be effectively an 'opinion piece', making a single coherent argument for a particular FE model, or it can be a collection of discourse summarising the various competing arguments. The reason it is getting ripped to shreds so much is that it is trying to be both - you have pages that make a singular argument for a particular thing, such as UA, other pages that make contradictory statements, but yet nowhere that pulls these arguments together. So it's not a case of 'it needs tidying up a bit', but rather a fundamental issue with the entire way it is constructed.
-
The reason it is getting ripped to shreds so much
It's not getting "ripped to shreds". A few betabunkers are upset with it because they never bothered to try to understand how it works. Your self-importance is clouding your judgement.
it is trying to be both
Well, it isn't. If you're trying to read it that way, I'm not surprised you're unhappy. Luckily, that's a problem you created for yourself, and thus you can fix it quite easily.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, satisfying you isn't our priority - our target audience is not sycophants who come here to tell us how round they think the Earth is, and we likely won't waste much time on them.