Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Gulliver

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Theory / Zetetics Deserve Better
« on: November 16, 2014, 08:43:21 PM »
FE'ers are not required to agree. There are multiple working, theoretical models of FET. This is a good thing and a sign of a healthy theory.
I think this is a little misleading. Some FEers eschew "theory", embracing instead the zetetic philosophy, which allows only the correct interpretation.

For example, see:
Quote from: EnaG, p. 1
THE term Zetetic is derived from the Greek verb Zeteo; which means to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. It is here used in contradistinction from the word "theoretic," the meaning of which is, speculative--imaginary--not tangible,--scheming, but not proving.
and reference:

Tom Bishop and pizzaplanet have been vocal on the issue as well. I encourage the use of the Forum's advanced search function to explore their points.

Pure zetetics do not produce theoretical models of FET. They do not go farther than pointing out that the Earth is flat, and other easily provable facts. The zetetic model is that from which all theoretical models follow. Those of us who refer to zeteticism and still theorize are neo-zetetics. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here, but we're definitely getting off topic and I'm really not sure a semantic argument about the definition of zeteticism is one worth having. I definitely don't want to have it.
Give zetetics their due. For example, Tom Bishop has worked, or at least has claimed to have worked, harder that anyone at demonstrating that the earth is flat since Rowbotham. To say that he goes no farther than "pointing out that the [e]arth is flat, and other easily provable facts" is unfair. Can any "neo-zetetic" document any experiment of the caliber of the "Bishop Experiment"?

Per Vx's request, to make this a separate thread.

Flat Earth Theory / Failures of AWT
« on: September 30, 2014, 05:18:48 PM »
Well, I guess we have about all the evidence (none) and description (very limited and even somewhat contradictory) we're going to get--in spite of FE promises, so let's start to list how AWT fails.

The first is in thermodynamics. To constantly accelerate the FE at g for billions of years, AWT would need to provide orders of magnitude more than 10303 joules. See: Assuming a 50% efficiency, so much of the energy would go into heating of the FE as to vaporize us.

Let me put a second in this first post. (I have about a dozen more.) Mathematical models of whirlpools require at least two energy states. For a bathtub drain whirlpool, the difference in the potential energy at the surface and at the "floor" of the tub creates the two states. Without gravity, AWT models have nothing to base their motion, and fail for yet another reason.

More to come in the coming days...

Flat Earth Theory / Explain AWT Please
« on: September 26, 2014, 09:18:58 PM »
While I disagree that presenting evidence about a theory should not build on understanding that theory, I've complied with Ts's request.

The amount is so great as to destroy all credibility of AWT, more than a centillion joules
Preliminary results suggest otherwise.

Well, first of all most of the energy goes into acceleration. It is a fairly efficient process by virtue of the substance itself. One of the requirements of Aether is that it very easily and efficiently gain and lose energy. This is what I mean by 'delicate'. I've yet to come up with a better word for it.

In addition, the earth has several processes creating significant amounts of heat according to RET. The most notable are compaction and radiation. Preliminary results suggest that the heat imparted by Aether would logically be similar to the heat imparted by these RET phenomena.
So you solve the problem by fiat, again. I had hoped for more.
Please post your "preliminary results". I've already posted mine. I do recommend that you stay with SR, vice GR, formulation. You'll need to watch the tanh function's asymptote. You'll need high precision. I suggest Maple or Mathematica. For some help, see:

Please verify my interpretation of what you described as the aether of AWT.

The aether is a fluid.
The aether has mass.
The aether has momentum.
The aether is composed of atoms.
The aether accelerates the FE to g and has since the creation of the FE.
The aether imparts its momentum to the FE by its atoms colliding with the FE's atoms.
The aether also balances the gear-controlled, rotating stellar objects, including the sun, moon, planets, and stars--regardless of their position over the FE.
Something else accelerates, or has accelerated, the aether.


Flat Earth Theory / What do FEers mean by "theory"
« on: August 10, 2014, 10:37:37 PM »
See #7 here:

Surely FET's "conspiracy theory" isn't really a "theory", right?

Flat Earth Community / Newton's Laws of Motion
« on: May 25, 2014, 09:26:54 AM »
There's a recurring theme of ignorance in the upper forums regarding Newton's Laws of Motion. His first major work, Philosophia naturalis principia mathematica, describes three fundamental laws of motion. The concept that FEer seem to struggle to handle and properly apply is acceleration. Even TheEngineer used to argue that acceleration was relative. It is not. Location is relative since there is no intrinsic coordinate system. Velocity is relative. In the thought experiment with two ships, altogether alone in the Universe, passing each other, observers on each ship can't determine which ship is in motion.

However, you know whether you're accelerating. You feel the force involved. You feel your weight on Earth. You fell the merry-go-round pulling you towards its center. You feel the airplane turning, rising, or dropping. So the argument that planes just "fly around" to delay their arrival fails quickly: The passengers would feel (and see) the turns and bust the required conspiracy.

Another problem FEers tend to have is trying to bash noobs with the circumnavigation argument. FEers argue that you can travel "around" the Earth, say on the Equator by traveling due east. Yes, on the FE that's a curved path, but you'd travel a curved path if you flew due east on the RE too. This fails: the passengers can detect the curved path. The pilot must steer the rudder to maintain the curved path. They would break the conspiracy. (Oh, and no, it's not a curved path on the RE, ignored changing in altitude. One needs only remember that a straight line on the surface of sphere follows the surface, just like the plane would. Indeed on an RE, the pilots and passenger would not feel any "curvature".)

One more lesson for this post: the term acceleration should be used carefully, in its scientific context. For example, to Thorks's slow acceptance, you can travel away from something, yet accelerate towards it. The ISS, for example, accelerates toward the gravitational center of the RE but never travels towards it. To Tom Bishop's chagrin, acceleration is the change in velocity, in speed, direction, or both. It does not mean going fast (or slow).

Flat Earth Community / Dealing with Conspiracy Theories
« on: May 25, 2014, 12:18:30 AM »
FET relies on conspiracy theories to avoid the RET plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face evidence From denying true space travel (orbital or super-orbital) to explaining longer than FET-predicted travel times in the ND, FET can survive only with this poly.

The first important point: A conspiracy theory can be (and usually is) not falsifiable. See definition at: .So if NASA is involved in the "Space Travel Conspiracy" and then North Korea manages an orbital flight then the conspiracy rather than treat NK's evidence as nullifying, simply claims NK is now involved, at some level, in the conspiracy. The "fiat" power of the not-formally-qualified conspiracy theory is that it grows to deflect any new result. As such any theory that relies on a conspiracy, is not a scientific theory, that is, that theory does not conform to the Scientific Method. See: .

So any postings above FEG are moot. The FEer can just wave his or her "magic" wand to explain the failing of FET and win the point. So, please, please, please, keep conspiracy theories in FEG. Thank you!

Second, FEers are confused about generalization and its incorrect use. A conspiracy theory start with the generalization. Everyone is fooled by the conspiracy theory, with of course the obvious exceptions of those perpetrating  the fraud. So if someone argues that flights which under FET's standard models should take less time than observed are always diverted "to fly around" undetected to arrive at a later, but RET predicted, time, then that's a generalization. The REer need only point to one counter-example, such as the use of FligthAware (See .) on one flight on one day, not show that all people tracked all flights for weeks and weeks without exception.

An interesting FEer spinning of a tall tale dates back to the early days of the old Forum. In order to explain earlier-than-FET-predicts arrivals within the SD, FEer made up the tale that in the SD there are convenient jet streams that travel in both directions placed and timed to support FET. The controller and pilots are in on the conspiracy so they ignore ground-speed RADAR and keep the secret.

So, I suggest that we just augment this thread and point FEers here every time one of them argues for a conspiracy theory as a solution to any debate point. There's no sense just repeating the same posts, is there?

Flat Earth Community / EnaG Critique
« on: May 05, 2014, 06:11:59 AM »
I thought it'd be enlightening to critique EnaG a part at a time. I'll try to critique a paragraph or several (up to a page), roughly in order, each day or so.

Quote from: EnaG p. 62
IF a ball is allowed to drop from the mast-head of a ship at rest, it will strike the deck at the foot of the mast. If the same experiment is tried with a ship in motion, the same result will follow; because, in the latter case, the ball is acted upon simultaneously by two forces at right angles to each other--one, the momentum given to it by the moving ship in the direction of its own motion; and the other, the force of gravity, the direction of which is at right angles to that of the momentum. The ball being acted upon by the two forces together, will not go in the direction of either, but will take a diagonal course, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 46.

This page fails quickly. Momentum is not a force. There is only one force acting on the falling ball. It's caused by gravity. Furthermore, R. forgets to specify vital assumptions. For example. he assumes that the ship's velocity is constant. And there's yet another level of error in this one paragraph. The observer's position (and motion) influences what path he (or she) perceives the ball takes. So this first page is riddled with errors. One has to start to wonder why FEers refer to this book at all.

Pages: [1]