[Lemmiwinks]

Right. There are a lot of labels can be slapped over that math.

So this is just about semantics for you? You agree that the GR math is correct, it accurately predicts the effects? Its just that the word gravity killed your wife and kids and you refuse to rest till all use of it is eliminated from the lexicon?

I personally am perfectly fine with that. Though the math also says that a flat earth traveling at the speed of light with the entire cosmos attached to it is impossible. So I have to assume that you again feel you want to cherry pick special relativity and dump general relativity, even though one progressed out of the other. Which I feel is strange.

[Tom Bishop]

They got the math generally correct enough to match observations (although not really, gravity fails in a lot of things like explaining the motion of the galaxies, and needs the universe to be filled with dark matter/energy to work). The main problem is that of scale. The stars and celestial bodies in RET are much bigger than the ones in FET, which shrinks the power of 'gravity', and somewhat changes its nature and implications, under the FET model.

Also, it is possible to accelerate indefinitely in space. This concept is not even cherry picking Special Relativity Theory. The relativity of motion was spoken about in Ancient Greece by Aristotle and others after him. It's old! The only new thing Einstein brought into his rip-off work was lumping it together with the relativity of time.

For a body traveling at 9.8 meters per second per second, from one second to the next it has increased its acceleration by 9.8 meters and has traveled that distance. It does not know about, or is affected by, or cares about, the previous increases in acceleration. In its reference frame it is static from one moment to the next. At some observation point, perhaps, 9.8 m/s/s would be appear to approach (but never quite appear to reach) the speed of light. The keyword is: appear.

Speed is relative. It is an outside observer phenomenon. An asteroid in space can be traveling 4 miles an hour or 4000 miles an hour depending on the speed of who is looking at it, relative to that asteroid.

[Rama Set]

You assume that it is going to marry GR and QM

What do you think the Grand Unified Theory is trying to unify?

I know that that is the intention.  Whether or not it is possible is another matter.

The existence for gravity is also self-apparent.

Gravity is a word which historically refers to the theory. Gravitation is the physical action of attracting bodies.

Semantics aside, I am glad we agree.

But there is no evidence of magnetic photons. The mechanism of magnetism is a mystery as well.

You still have no understanding of what the magnetic photon is.  It is like you read the title of an article and assumed everything else.  It also seems like you might not grasp electro-magnetism. 

Electricity and magnetism are the same force, they do not require a separate gauge boson.  The magnetic photon was postulated as a requirement for a hypothetical magnetic phenomenon, magnetic monopoles.  The magnetic monopole has never been observed, and if it is, they will look for the magnetic photon.  Really it is irrelevant to the mechanism of a magnetic field.  You should let it go now, it has been too long.

There are plenty of references indicating that the hypothetical mechanism of Magnitism is via special photons. The main thing to take away from this page and others is that they don't really know what causes it.

From the wikipedia page on magnetic photons:

In physics, a magnetic photon is a hypothetical particle. It is a mixture of even and odd C-parity states and, unlike the normal photon, does not couple to leptons. It is predicted by certain extensions of electromagnetism to include magnetic monopoles. There is no experimental evidence for the existence of this particle, and several versions [1] have been ruled out by negative experiments.[2]

The magnetic photon was predicted in 1966 by Nobel laureate Abdus Salam.[3]

I have never seen anything indicating that the photon is not the mechanism of magnetism.  I cannot navigate to your link, but I would be interested in seeing what it has to offer.  Can you quote any of it?

[Rama Set]

They got the math generally correct enough to match observations (although not really, gravity fails in a lot of things like explaining the motion of the galaxies, and needs the universe to be filled with dark matter/energy to work).

This may be a problem with the theory or it may be a hitherto unobserved phenomenon.  Considering the success of the theory to this point, it seems efficient to consider the latter first. 

[Lemmiwinks]

They got the math generally correct enough to match observations (although not really, gravity fails in a lot of things like explaining the motion of the galaxies, and needs the universe to be filled with dark matter/energy to work). The main problem is that of scale. The stars and celestial bodies in RET are much bigger than the ones in FET, which shrinks the power of 'gravity', and somewhat changes its nature and implications, under the FET model.

Also, it is possible to accelerate indefinitely in space. This concept is not even cherry picking Special Relativity Theory. The relativity of motion was spoken about in Ancient Greece by Aristotle and others after him. It's old! The only new thing Einstein brought into his rip-off work was lumping it together with the relativity of time.

For a body traveling at 9.8 meters per second per second, from one second to the next it has increased its acceleration by 9.8 meters and has traveled that distance. It does not know about, or is affected by, or cares about, the previous increases in acceleration. In its reference frame it is static from one moment to the next. At some observation point, perhaps, 9.8 m/s/s would be appear to approach (but never quite appear to reach) the speed of light. The keyword is: appear.

Speed is relative. It is an outside observer phenomenon. An asteroid in space can be traveling 4 miles an hour or 4000 miles an hour depending on the speed of who is looking at it, relative to that asteroid.

No I mean cherry picking GR, the effects described are accepted, but one of the things it shows is that a large shape that is being held together by whatever you want to call the effect of gravity will form a sphere, a flat disc goes counter to the model that the math of GR predicts for celestial bodies. Even galaxy's are extremely slowly rotating secretion discs much like the model for an early solar system. what mater doesn't fall into the central object (the super massive black hole) clumps together and slowly forms bodies. In the galaxies case, round stars, in the solar systems case, round planets.

I know that if you keep extending the the realm of belief you can make UA work, but to say that the entire cosmos, from the stars and planets to the galaxies to the universal filament is all rotating the tiny ass speck of the earths flat disc, with all of that mass for no reason at all accelerating in one direction at nearly the speed of light just to try and come up with a counter theory to 'all mass attracts other mass' really flies in the face of Occam's Razor; by several orders of magnitude.

[markjo]

You assume that it is going to marry GR and QM

What do you think the Grand Unified Theory is trying to unify?

Well, Princeton University seems to think that a GUT is trying to unify the Strong, Weak and EM forces.  What do you think a GUT is supposed to unify?

They got the math generally correct enough to match observations (although not really, gravity fails in a lot of things like explaining the motion of the galaxies, and needs the universe to be filled with dark matter/energy to work).

Why do you assume that the motions of galaxies is a failure of our understanding of the nature of gravity and not a failure of our understanding of the nature of galaxies?

[Gulliver]

For a body traveling at 9.8 meters per second per second, from one second to the next it has increased its acceleration by 9.8 meters and has traveled that distance. It does not know about, or is affected by, or cares about, the previous increases in acceleration. In its reference frame it is static from one moment to the next. At some observation point, perhaps, 9.8 m/s/s would be appear to approach (but never quite appear to reach) the speed of light. The keyword is: appear.

Not even close. Please review and repost. For example, a body doesn't travel at 9.8 m/s/s. iFoRs are not static for objects under acceleration. You feel the acceleration when you turn your car sharply at say 40 MPH.

Also since you emphasized the word "appear", I have to ask you if the earth "appears" flat to you.

[Tom Bishop]

The sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole. Therefore, they are moving upward with the Earth. This explains why they do not 'blue shift', as you say. And yes, the stars are much smaller than you believe.

So over a hundred billion stars, each with a few planets each we think now, so a few hundred billion planets, including the hundreds of billions of observable galaxies, each with their own hundred billion stars and hundreds of billions of planets and the galactic filaments those things comprise? What is forcing this much mass to stick to such a tiny disk?

Hell, even if the stars are microscopic the mass of the stars all orbiting around us for no reason would be staggering.

No extra solar planets have been discovered. Astronomers assume a lot about the slight wobbles and brightness/color variations in the stars.

[Gulliver]

The sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole. Therefore, they are moving upward with the Earth. This explains why they do not 'blue shift', as you say. And yes, the stars are much smaller than you believe.

So over a hundred billion stars, each with a few planets each we think now, so a few hundred billion planets, including the hundreds of billions of observable galaxies, each with their own hundred billion stars and hundreds of billions of planets and the galactic filaments those things comprise? What is forcing this much mass to stick to such a tiny disk?

Hell, even if the stars are microscopic the mass of the stars all orbiting around us for no reason would be staggering.

No extra solar planets have been discovered. Astronomers assume a lot about the slight wobbles and brightness/color variations in the stars.

Tom, we've explained this to you repeatedly. It's not just the distant stars' color variations, but rather their spectral shifts. See, again: “Cosmos,” episode 8, “Sisters of the Sun,”

[Tom Bishop]

The sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole. Therefore, they are moving upward with the Earth. This explains why they do not 'blue shift', as you say. And yes, the stars are much smaller than you believe.

So over a hundred billion stars, each with a few planets each we think now, so a few hundred billion planets, including the hundreds of billions of observable galaxies, each with their own hundred billion stars and hundreds of billions of planets and the galactic filaments those things comprise? What is forcing this much mass to stick to such a tiny disk?

Hell, even if the stars are microscopic the mass of the stars all orbiting around us for no reason would be staggering.

No extra solar planets have been discovered. Astronomers assume a lot about the slight wobbles and brightness/color variations in the stars.

Tom, we've explained this to you repeatedly. It's not just the distant stars' color variations, but rather their spectral shifts. See, again: “Cosmos,” episode 8, “Sisters of the Sun,”

Color change is a shift in spectrum.

[Tom Bishop]

They got the math generally correct enough to match observations (although not really, gravity fails in a lot of things like explaining the motion of the galaxies, and needs the universe to be filled with dark matter/energy to work). The main problem is that of scale. The stars and celestial bodies in RET are much bigger than the ones in FET, which shrinks the power of 'gravity', and somewhat changes its nature and implications, under the FET model.

Also, it is possible to accelerate indefinitely in space. This concept is not even cherry picking Special Relativity Theory. The relativity of motion was spoken about in Ancient Greece by Aristotle and others after him. It's old! The only new thing Einstein brought into his rip-off work was lumping it together with the relativity of time.

For a body traveling at 9.8 meters per second per second, from one second to the next it has increased its acceleration by 9.8 meters and has traveled that distance. It does not know about, or is affected by, or cares about, the previous increases in acceleration. In its reference frame it is static from one moment to the next. At some observation point, perhaps, 9.8 m/s/s would be appear to approach (but never quite appear to reach) the speed of light. The keyword is: appear.

Speed is relative. It is an outside observer phenomenon. An asteroid in space can be traveling 4 miles an hour or 4000 miles an hour depending on the speed of who is looking at it, relative to that asteroid.

No I mean cherry picking GR, the effects described are accepted, but one of the things it shows is that a large shape that is being held together by whatever you want to call the effect of gravity will form a sphere, a flat disc goes counter to the model that the math of GR predicts for celestial bodies. Even galaxy's are extremely slowly rotating secretion discs much like the model for an early solar system. what mater doesn't fall into the central object (the super massive black hole) clumps together and slowly forms bodies. In the galaxies case, round stars, in the solar systems case, round planets.

I know that if you keep extending the the realm of belief you can make UA work, but to say that the entire cosmos, from the stars and planets to the galaxies to the universal filament is all rotating the tiny ass speck of the earths flat disc, with all of that mass for no reason at all accelerating in one direction at nearly the speed of light just to try and come up with a counter theory to 'all mass attracts other mass' really flies in the face of Occam's Razor; by several orders of magnitude.

It's not traveling at the speed of light. Speed is relative! The speed it is traveling is dependant on the observer. There are stars in RET which appear to be traveling at nearly light speed. If you were in orbit around such a  star moving at that speed you would believe that you were stationary.

Also, Occams Razor favors a Flat Earth on this matter. What is the simplest explanation, that when I step off the edge of a chair and see the earth rise upwards to meet my feet, that invisible undiscovered bends in space fabric/undiscovered subatomic puller particles have pulled me to the earth, or that the earth has simply risen upwards exactly as I've observed?

Whatever physical process is pushing the earth beneath it in FET can be a mechanism within known physics. Lots of things can push. The mystery needed for gravity pulling is undiscovered and needs an entirely new branch of physics to occur.

[Gulliver]

The sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole. Therefore, they are moving upward with the Earth. This explains why they do not 'blue shift', as you say. And yes, the stars are much smaller than you believe.

So over a hundred billion stars, each with a few planets each we think now, so a few hundred billion planets, including the hundreds of billions of observable galaxies, each with their own hundred billion stars and hundreds of billions of planets and the galactic filaments those things comprise? What is forcing this much mass to stick to such a tiny disk?

Hell, even if the stars are microscopic the mass of the stars all orbiting around us for no reason would be staggering.

No extra solar planets have been discovered. Astronomers assume a lot about the slight wobbles and brightness/color variations in the stars.

Tom, we've explained this to you repeatedly. It's not just the distant stars' color variations, but rather their spectral shifts. See, again: “Cosmos,” episode 8, “Sisters of the Sun,”

Color change is a shift in spectrum.

But the detected and verified spectral shift is more than just a color change. What don't you understand about spectral lines in that episode?

[Gulliver]

Whatever physical process is pushing the earth beneath it in FET can be a mechanism within known physics. Lots of things can push. The mystery needed for gravity pulling is undiscovered and needs an entirely new branch of physics to occur.

No, there is no known mechanism that can produce the required energy (more than a centillion joules) to accelerate the FE over such a known history.

[Rama Set]

Whatever physical process is pushing the earth beneath it in FET can be a mechanism within known physics. Lots of things can push. The mystery needed for gravity pulling is undiscovered and needs an entirely new branch of physics to occur.

No, there is no known mechanism that can produce the required energy (more than a centillion joules) to accelerate the FE over such a known history.

And it is nearly everything in the heavens as well that is being accelerated. Contrary to what Tom is asserting the

They got the math generally correct enough to match observations (although not really, gravity fails in a lot of things like explaining the motion of the galaxies, and needs the universe to be filled with dark matter/energy to work). The main problem is that of scale. The stars and celestial bodies in RET are much bigger than the ones in FET, which shrinks the power of 'gravity', and somewhat changes its nature and implications, under the FET model.

Also, it is possible to accelerate indefinitely in space. This concept is not even cherry picking Special Relativity Theory. The relativity of motion was spoken about in Ancient Greece by Aristotle and others after him. It's old! The only new thing Einstein brought into his rip-off work was lumping it together with the relativity of time.

For a body traveling at 9.8 meters per second per second, from one second to the next it has increased its acceleration by 9.8 meters and has traveled that distance. It does not know about, or is affected by, or cares about, the previous increases in acceleration. In its reference frame it is static from one moment to the next. At some observation point, perhaps, 9.8 m/s/s would be appear to approach (but never quite appear to reach) the speed of light. The keyword is: appear.

Speed is relative. It is an outside observer phenomenon. An asteroid in space can be traveling 4 miles an hour or 4000 miles an hour depending on the speed of who is looking at it, relative to that asteroid.

No I mean cherry picking GR, the effects described are accepted, but one of the things it shows is that a large shape that is being held together by whatever you want to call the effect of gravity will form a sphere, a flat disc goes counter to the model that the math of GR predicts for celestial bodies. Even galaxy's are extremely slowly rotating secretion discs much like the model for an early solar system. what mater doesn't fall into the central object (the super massive black hole) clumps together and slowly forms bodies. In the galaxies case, round stars, in the solar systems case, round planets.

I know that if you keep extending the the realm of belief you can make UA work, but to say that the entire cosmos, from the stars and planets to the galaxies to the universal filament is all rotating the tiny ass speck of the earths flat disc, with all of that mass for no reason at all accelerating in one direction at nearly the speed of light just to try and come up with a counter theory to 'all mass attracts other mass' really flies in the face of Occam's Razor; by several orders of magnitude.

It's not traveling at the speed of light. Speed is relative! The speed it is traveling is dependant on the observer. There are stars in RET which appear to be traveling at nearly light speed. If you were in orbit around such a  star moving at that speed you would believe that you were stationary.

Also, Occams Razor favors a Flat Earth on this matter. What is the simplest explanation, that when I step off the edge of a chair and see the earth rise upwards to meet my feet, that invisible undiscovered bends in space fabric/undiscovered subatomic puller particles have pulled me to the earth, or that the earth has simply risen upwards exactly as I've observed?

Whatever physical process is pushing the earth beneath it in FET can be a mechanism within known physics. Lots of things can push. The mystery needed for gravity pulling is undiscovered and needs an entirely new branch of physics to occur.

They got the math generally correct enough to match observations (although not really, gravity fails in a lot of things like explaining the motion of the galaxies, and needs the universe to be filled with dark matter/energy to work). The main problem is that of scale. The stars and celestial bodies in RET are much bigger than the ones in FET, which shrinks the power of 'gravity', and somewhat changes its nature and implications, under the FET model.

Also, it is possible to accelerate indefinitely in space. This concept is not even cherry picking Special Relativity Theory. The relativity of motion was spoken about in Ancient Greece by Aristotle and others after him. It's old! The only new thing Einstein brought into his rip-off work was lumping it together with the relativity of time.

For a body traveling at 9.8 meters per second per second, from one second to the next it has increased its acceleration by 9.8 meters and has traveled that distance. It does not know about, or is affected by, or cares about, the previous increases in acceleration. In its reference frame it is static from one moment to the next. At some observation point, perhaps, 9.8 m/s/s would be appear to approach (but never quite appear to reach) the speed of light. The keyword is: appear.

Speed is relative. It is an outside observer phenomenon. An asteroid in space can be traveling 4 miles an hour or 4000 miles an hour depending on the speed of who is looking at it, relative to that asteroid.

No I mean cherry picking GR, the effects described are accepted, but one of the things it shows is that a large shape that is being held together by whatever you want to call the effect of gravity will form a sphere, a flat disc goes counter to the model that the math of GR predicts for celestial bodies. Even galaxy's are extremely slowly rotating secretion discs much like the model for an early solar system. what mater doesn't fall into the central object (the super massive black hole) clumps together and slowly forms bodies. In the galaxies case, round stars, in the solar systems case, round planets.

I know that if you keep extending the the realm of belief you can make UA work, but to say that the entire cosmos, from the stars and planets to the galaxies to the universal filament is all rotating the tiny ass speck of the earths flat disc, with all of that mass for no reason at all accelerating in one direction at nearly the speed of light just to try and come up with a counter theory to 'all mass attracts other mass' really flies in the face of Occam's Razor; by several orders of magnitude.

It's not traveling at the speed of light. Speed is relative! The speed it is traveling is dependant on the observer. There are stars in RET which appear to be traveling at nearly light speed. If you were in orbit around such a  star moving at that speed you would believe that you were stationary.

Also, Occams Razor favors a Flat Earth on this matter. What is the simplest explanation, that when I step off the edge of a chair and see the earth rise upwards to meet my feet, that invisible undiscovered bends in space fabric/undiscovered subatomic puller particles have pulled me to the earth, or that the earth has simply risen upwards exactly as I've observed?

Whatever physical process is pushing the earth beneath it in FET can be a mechanism within known physics. Lots of things can push. The mystery needed for gravity pulling is undiscovered and needs an entirely new branch of physics to occur.

Occam's razor cannot favor the UA because it is not a competing explanation, it is not even satisfactory. When you have an explanation for the variation of g at altitude or latitude or next to a mountain you can try reasserting this but as of right now, even with all the unknown parts of gravity it is still magnitudes more fleshed out than UA.

[Ghost of V]

Dark matter is just one of the many assumptions that RE'ers make to make their model work. Flat Earth Theory makes no assumptions, and is the simplest explanation for what we see (Earth looks flat). Therefore Occam's razor does favor FET.

[Rama Set]

Dark matter is just one of the many assumptions that RE'ers make to make their model work.

No one assumes dark matter exists.  A gap in knowledge was encountered and rather than shrugging it off a hypothesis was formulated to explain it which is being tested.

Flat Earth Theory makes no assumptions, and is the simplest explanation for what we see (Earth looks flat).

You assume Aether exists.   You assume the UA.  You assume that the laws of perspective are wrong.   You assume Rowbotham is right.  You assume we have never been to space.  The list goes on and on.

Therefore occam's razor does favor FET.

Considering there is direct observation of the Earth's curvature even without space travel, your argument would appear to be incorrect.
We
[/quote]

FET makes assumptions, do not kid yourself.

[Ghost of V]

No one assumes dark matter exists.

What? Any scientist who studies astrophysics assumes dark matter exists. And apparently, according to them, dark matter accounts for most of the matter in the entire universe.

A gap in knowledge was encountered and rather than shrugging it off a hypothesis was formulated to explain it which is being tested.

Yet there is no evidence for it except fluctuations in gravity that are unexplained in your model. That's where the assumption comes in. It's rather sad that an assumption makes up most of the matter in the universe, wouldn't you say? It's almost like without that the entire model falls apart. 


So, don't kid yourself. Dark matter is purely conjecture.

[Rama Set]

No one assumes dark matter exists.

What? Any scientist who studies astrophysics assumes dark matter exists. And apparently, according to them, dark matter accounts for most of the matter in the entire universe.

A gap in knowledge was encountered and rather than shrugging it off a hypothesis was formulated to explain it which is being tested.

Yet there is no evidence for it except fluctuations in gravity that are unexplained in your model. That's where the assumption comes in. It's rather sad that an assumption makes up most of the matter in the universe, wouldn't you say? It's almost like without that the entire model falls apart. 


So, don't kid yourself. Dark matter is purely conjecture.

Considering I said Dark Matter was a hypothesis I don't think your "gotcha!" post was very cutting.

From the Wikipedia page:

[Dark Matter] is otherwise hypothesized to simply be matter that is not reactant to light.[3]

(emphasis my own)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

[Ghost of V]

Dark matter is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Therefore it is an assumption. I don't care what word you choose to use to make it sound more legitimate.

RET hinges on dark matter the same way FET hinges on aether.

We're not so different.

[Rama Set]

Dark matter is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Therefore it is an assumption. I don't care what word you choose to use to make it sound more legitimate.

What?  No. If they were taking the hypothesis as true, you would be right, but they aren't. There is an active search for Dark Matter.

RET hinges on dark matter the same way FET hinges on aether.

We're not so different.

Neither one of your premises are true, therefore your conclusion is also not true.