[Pete Svarrior]

So your argument is that a completely vague theory is better than a theory which we can test and find to be incorrect?

I guess we disagree about the extent of vagueness here. But, in essence, yes: it is better to have a hypothesis which is consistent with observation, or even to acknowledge that you simply don't know something, than to cling to a theory which we know is incorrect. Naturally, the search doesn't stop there, and it hasn't stopped, but that's where we are right now.

[AATW]

CG from what I can read, isn't really defined.

Spherical, you are essentially taking an issue with the fact that the Flat Earth Theory is a work in progress, and that there are still many unknowns. This, of course, is only normal in the pursuit of truth. We don't have all the answers, but an incomplete answer is vastly preferable to an incorrect one.

What is normal in the pursuit of truth is to...well, pursue truth.
So where there are unknowns you take steps to try and make them known. I don't see that happening here. And OK, you don't have research budgets, but simple experiments have been proposed here which anyone could do and I don't see any effort from the FE community to do them.

The general way things have been discovered has been:

1) Make observation
2) Create hypothesis to explain observation
3) Devise experiment to test hypothesis.

If the results of 3 are in line with the hypothesis then this adds weight to the hypothesis and as more experiments are defined and match the hypothesis it builds more confidence. If experiments are not in line with the hypothesis then it must be amended or, possibly, scrapped entirely.

I don't see any of 3 going on.

So gravity explains why objects fall towards earth, it explains why the acceleration due to gravity is the same regardless of the mass of the object and it explains why the rate of acceleration varies depending on where you are on earth. It explains how planets orbit the sun and moons orbit their planets. It explains the trajectory of comets and other bodies. As a model of how the universe hangs together it works, it explains observations. Experiments like the Cavendish one give confidence in the idea that bodies attract one another.

For UA to be taken seriously as an alternative it has to be at least as good a model as gravity. It ticks the a couple of the boxes above but that's about it. The rest you start making up stuff like CG to explain the 3rd but it's a bit of a fudge. There's a lot of circular reasoning in FE, it often goes:

This hypothesis explains this observation
Where is the evidence for that hypothesis?
The observation.

It's like the old joke:

1st man in London: This rock repels tigers
2nd man: Does it work?
1st man: Do you see any tigers?

What are you guys actually doing to pursue truth and develop your theories and test them?

[JRowe]

There's a lot of circular reasoning in FE, it often goes:

This hypothesis explains this observation
Where is the evidence for that hypothesis?
The observation.

What do you think evidence is? I don't think there is a single scientific theory for which the evidence isn't "It explains those observations."
If you can think of a single counterexample, I would love to be corrected.

[Jon56]

Hi Pete sorry for jumping in on this discussion.
I've had a read of the FAQ and am struggling to understand UA and CG. Is there some kind of unification of these two theories or are they two separate things?
The way it seems to me is that we stick on this disk as we are accelerating at a constant velocity of 9.81 ms2 which gives us 1g. the rest of the universe is doing what at this time? I'm guessing accelerating with us. CG is the other kind of gravity that holds the rest of the universe together?

That's pretty much it. Generally speaking, everything in the Flat Earth Model is affected by gravitation, much like it would in the round Earth model. The main difference is that it's a relatively weak force. While the brunt of the gravity we perceive comes from UA, precise measurements will reveal slight variances which are currently understood to be caused mainly by CG.

CG from what I can read, isn't really defined.

Spherical, you are essentially taking an issue with the fact that the Flat Earth Theory is a work in progress, and that there are still many unknowns. This, of course, is only normal in the pursuit of truth. We don't have all the answers, but an incomplete answer is vastly preferable to an incorrect one.

Nope no issues here at all just seeking to further understand UA! So we get out weight from a constant acceleration got that bit and yup it works really well.
So we accelerate at 9.81 m/ss? This fits in nicely with everything yay science!

How long have we been accelerating? And what happens when like my car we run out of horse power? And we reach our final speed? Really concerned about that.

Oh is spherical some kind of thing I’m kind of flatnostic to be honest I kind of like the concept as it fits with what I can see with my own eyes but do have a few reservations when it comes to the physics of flat.

[Pete Svarrior]

And what happens when like my car we run out of horse power? And we reach our final speed? Really concerned about that.

You cannot logically consider this situation from a classical mechanics point of view. You have to account for Special Relativity and the fact that we perceive an acceleration of 9.81ms^-2 while on the Earth or immediately above it.

[inquisitive]

And what happens when like my car we run out of horse power? And we reach our final speed? Really concerned about that.

You cannot logically consider this situation from a classical mechanics point of view. You have to account for Special Relativity and the fact that we perceive an acceleration of 9.81ms^-2 while on the Earth or immediately above it.

the value varies. See http://www.npl.co.uk/news/transportable-optical-clock-used-to-measure-gravitation-for-the-first-time

[Pete Svarrior]

the value varies.

Yes, we already talked about that in this thread.

[Jon56]

And what happens when like my car we run out of horse power? And we reach our final speed? Really concerned about that.

You cannot logically consider this situation from a classical mechanics point of view. You have to account for Special Relativity and the fact that we perceive an acceleration of 9.81ms^-2 while on the Earth or immediately above it.

Erm not quite understanding this we perceive the acceleration while on Earth so is the Earth actually accelerating or not?
When I’m in a lift I perceive a local change in gravity during acceleration but then return to “normal “ gravity when speed is constant.
It’s just that the details say that we have gravity due to the acceleration of the Earth not a perceived acceleration. I’m not quite sure I grasp how a perceived acceleration can give us gravity.

[Jon56]

And what happens when like my car we run out of horse power? And we reach our final speed? Really concerned about that.

You cannot logically consider this situation from a classical mechanics point of view. You have to account for Special Relativity and the fact that we perceive an acceleration of 9.81ms^-2 while on the Earth or immediately above it.

the value varies. See http://www.npl.co.uk/news/transportable-optical-clock-used-to-measure-gravitation-for-the-first-time

Wow cool article.
Really interesting that you can use a very very accurate clock to measure the difference in gravity resolving with a change in height.
Erm how does this fit in with UA I thought the point was that the whole of our Flat Earth was perceived to be accelerating uniformly at 9.81 m/ss if there is a change with altitude how does this even work!

[JRowe]

And what happens when like my car we run out of horse power? And we reach our final speed? Really concerned about that.

You cannot logically consider this situation from a classical mechanics point of view. You have to account for Special Relativity and the fact that we perceive an acceleration of 9.81ms^-2 while on the Earth or immediately above it.

the value varies. See http://www.npl.co.uk/news/transportable-optical-clock-used-to-measure-gravitation-for-the-first-time

Wow cool article.
Really interesting that you can use a very very accurate clock to measure the difference in gravity resolving with a change in height.
Erm how does this fit in with UA I thought the point was that the whole of our Flat Earth was perceived to be accelerating uniformly at 9.81 m/ss if there is a change with altitude how does this even work!

Pete literally pointed out how that had already been pointed out in this thread. Don't act like you care about an answer when you would rather post to just make a snide comment rather than skim-read a single thread.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10036.msg158273#msg158273

[Pete Svarrior]

Erm not quite understanding this we perceive the acceleration while on Earth so is the Earth actually accelerating or not?

Depends on the observer/frame of reference. Special Relativity is not always intuitive.

[Jon56]

And what happens when like my car we run out of horse power? And we reach our final speed? Really concerned about that.

You cannot logically consider this situation from a classical mechanics point of view. You have to account for Special Relativity and the fact that we perceive an acceleration of 9.81ms^-2 while on the Earth or immediately above it.

the value varies. See http://www.npl.co.uk/news/transportable-optical-clock-used-to-measure-gravitation-for-the-first-time

Wow cool article.
Really interesting that you can use a very very accurate clock to measure the difference in gravity resolving with a change in height.
Erm how does this fit in with UA I thought the point was that the whole of our Flat Earth was perceived to be accelerating uniformly at 9.81 m/ss if there is a change with altitude how does this even work!

Pete literally pointed out how that had already been pointed out in this thread. Don't act like you care about an answer when you would rather post to just make a snide comment rather than skim-read a single thread.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10036.msg158273#msg158273

Didn’t skim read article. Read it and understand that time will alter ever so slightly with a change in altitude due to the variation of the gravitational effect. We know that time and gravity are indeed linked the only constant in the universe is the speed of light. 
The proof of local time was very welll described in one of Stephen Hawkings lectures that I read. I can put it here if you like it’s simple enough.
All I asked is how this fits in with a genuine interest in the UA model of the universe I seek an understanding of the thought process and the interaction between UA and CG
So I take mild offence at the accusations of snide comments.
If you have nothing constructive to say say nothing at all is what my good old(now dead) dad used to say.

[Jon56]

Erm not quite understanding this we perceive the acceleration while on Earth so is the Earth actually accelerating or not?

Depends on the observer/frame of reference. Special Relativity is not always intuitive.

Oh OK could you help me get a better understanding of your understanding of general relativity I have my own preconceived ideas that may of course be completely wrong!
So far I have that the speed of light is constant. 180000 miles per second give or take.
If I fire a beam of light while traveling on a train at say 0.5 times the speed of light the distance traveled in my frame of reference would be 180000 miles per second however an observer outside of the train cannot see light traveling at 270000 miles per second so therefore the time it takes for the light to travel for the observer must be different.
Is this correct?

Sorry had to modify this as I forgot of course the light traveling a fixed distance duh!

[JRowe]

Didn’t skim read article. Read it and understand that time will alter ever so slightly with a change in altitude due to the variation of the gravitational effect. We know that time and gravity are indeed linked the only constant in the universe is the speed of light. 
The proof of local time was very welll described in one of Stephen Hawkings lectures that I read. I can put it here if you like it’s simple enough.
All I asked is how this fits in with a genuine interest in the UA model of the universe I seek an understanding of the thought process and the interaction between UA and CG
So I take mild offence at the accusations of snide comments.
If you have nothing constructive to say say nothing at all is what my good old(now dead) dad used to say.

Pete literally pointed out how that had already been pointed out in this thread. Don't act like you care about an answer when you would rather post to just make a snide comment rather than skim-read a single thread.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10036.msg158273#msg158273

[AATW]

What do you think evidence is? I don't think there is a single scientific theory for which the evidence isn't "It explains those observations."
If you can think of a single counterexample, I would love to be corrected.

But it doesn't just explain observations, it can predict what the results of other experiments should be. Relativity has become accepted because it explained observations and decades later the predictions of it were being verified.
There's a difference between saying:

"The sun should get smaller as it goes away from us"
"No, because there's an atmospheric effect which magnifies it as it goes away such that it appears the same size"
"Where is your evidence for that?"
"Well...the sun stays the same size..."

Now, if that's a straw man then tell me how. What other evidence is there for this atmospheric magnification? In the Wiki there's a picture of some lights which is clearly has a load of lens flare in, let's see some examples of lights through a filter which recede into the distance and yet stay the same size because you can find pictures of the sun which do just that.

Compare and contrast with the Cavendish Experiment. The theory says that there is a gravitational force between two bodies, you can calculate how much force is predicted by the theory and then test that.

[Tom Bishop]

What do you think evidence is? I don't think there is a single scientific theory for which the evidence isn't "It explains those observations."
If you can think of a single counterexample, I would love to be corrected.

But it doesn't just explain observations, it can predict what the results of other experiments should be. Relativity has become accepted because it explained observations and decades later the predictions of it were being verified.
There's a difference between saying:

"The sun should get smaller as it goes away from us"
"No, because there's an atmospheric effect which magnifies it as it goes away such that it appears the same size"
"Where is your evidence for that?"
"Well...the sun stays the same size..."

Now, if that's a straw man then tell me how. What other evidence is there for this atmospheric magnification? In the Wiki there's a picture of some lights which is clearly has a load of lens flare in, let's see some examples of lights through a filter which recede into the distance and yet stay the same size because you can find pictures of the sun which do just that.

The Wiki does have a couple of examples of the effect seen through polarized lenses.

[Jon56]

Didn’t skim read article. Read it and understand that time will alter ever so slightly with a change in altitude due to the variation of the gravitational effect. We know that time and gravity are indeed linked the only constant in the universe is the speed of light. 
The proof of local time was very welll described in one of Stephen Hawkings lectures that I read. I can put it here if you like it’s simple enough.
All I asked is how this fits in with a genuine interest in the UA model of the universe I seek an understanding of the thought process and the interaction between UA and CG
So I take mild offence at the accusations of snide comments.
If you have nothing constructive to say say nothing at all is what my good old(now dead) dad used to say.

Pete literally pointed out how that had already been pointed out in this thread. Don't act like you care about an answer when you would rather post to just make a snide comment rather than skim-read a single thread.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10036.msg158273#msg158273

Started reading your works on DE. That’s a great start and a hell of a lot of work. It’s going to take some time to get through it you seem to have a great way of explaining some of the details that are missing with the standard FE model. How’s this being received?

Going to have to take a big more time to get the best out of it!

[JRowe]

What do you think evidence is? I don't think there is a single scientific theory for which the evidence isn't "It explains those observations."
If you can think of a single counterexample, I would love to be corrected.

But it doesn't just explain observations, it can predict what the results of other experiments should be. Relativity has become accepted because it explained observations and decades later the predictions of it were being verified.

That's a flawed perspective. Those other experiments are still ultimately just observations, but putting the emphasis on prediction is to favor tradition over truth. That's not to say that experiments shouldn't be performed, they absolutely should, more and more data should always be amassed, but when all is said and done what matters is which model can explain all the chronicled observations, not which happened to be thought up first.

Further, what matters is a model as a whole, not an individual snippet. To use an example I'm sure you'd take issue with, one could easily say the Earth is flat because it seems that way to look out the window. Then to use your framing, the REer would be met with:
"We should observe the curvature of the Earth."
"No, because it is so large that the curvature cannot be easily observed."
"Where is your evidence for that?"
"Well... the curvature can't be seen out a window."

I'm sure you'd be first in line to point out that's unfair, and I'd agree; I wouldn't reject RET for that alone. No doubt you have several other factors which make you accept RET and, as a result, accept the necessary subsequent claims such as that large curvature. The same is true for FET; when something is a necessary consequence of a theory, and you have seen convincing evidence for said theory, then you must accept those consequences.
It's not to say those consequences can't be examined or disproved, but such things shouldn't be assumed.

[AATW]

The Wiki does have a couple of examples of the effect seen through polarized lenses.

Those examples clearly show a load of lens flare.
The examples I'm talking about of the sun show it as a clear disc, filtered such that all glare and lens flare is not present.
Your examples are not filtered enough to show that.

[Tom Bishop]

The Wiki does have a couple of examples of the effect seen through polarized lenses.

Those examples clearly show a load of lens flare.
The examples I'm talking about of the sun show it as a clear disc, filtered such that all glare and lens flare is not present.
Your examples are not filtered enough to show that.

What so you mean not filtered enough? The manufacturer says that those glasses are 100% polarized.

The filtered images of the sun as a disc that you are talking about are not consistently bright, suggesting that it is not a solid body.

A recent addition to the wiki article:

Sun Brightness Inconsistent

Additionally, it should be noted that the sun appears to be inconsistently bright. This is curious, since in the Round Earth model the sun is a solid object where every point from the sun's surface is reaching the eye of the observer. As a solid body, one should expect to see all parts of the sun with equal intensity.

Take a photo of a Solar Eclipse, which are often taken through a solar filter, and then modify the brightness and contrast settings in order to bring out the areas of the image which are the brightest:



Compare that to the hotspotting seen in a projector's image on a screen:



Source: Hotspotting or brightness inhomogeneity