The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: BrownieMasque on December 27, 2014, 03:12:38 PM
-
Hello everyone ! I started looking for information on the Flat Earth topic, and I have seen maps. According to the Flat Earth Theory, the flat earth is surrounded by Antartica, which is a mass of ice that surrounds the Earth.
You agree with me when I say that now, in 2014, we have planes that can go really far away (since a long time now actually).
What if a plane tried to go beyond this ice mass ? It must have an end. So what ? Does the plane just fall into the vacuum of space ? I need to know ???
(Btw, don't flame me, I'm not trying to bother you guys. Just asking questions.)
-
The howling winds, hail/snow storms, and hurricane-like weather prevents safe travel beyond the Ice Wall. Most pilots are not brave enough (or stupid enough) to fly into such a dangerous enviroment. The ones who have (if any) have vanished without a trace.
-
The howling winds, hail/snow storms, and hurricane-like weather prevents safe travel beyond the Ice Wall. Most pilots are not brave enough (or stupid enough) to fly into such a dangerous enviroment. The ones who have (if any) have vanished without a trace.
You are making this up. Measured distances prove there is no such wall,
-
You are making this up.
Good rebuttal.
If you have something substantial to add, please do.
-
You are making this up.
Good rebuttal.
If you have something substantial to add, please do.
I will. Measured distances prove the shape of the earth. It is not a circular shape centered on the North Pole. Travel distances prove this. This means that as you circle round the South Pole you do not travel huge distances, every distance is proven.
-
You are making this up.
Good rebuttal.
If you have something substantial to add, please do.
I will. Measured distances prove the shape of the earth. It is not a circular shape centered on the North Pole. Travel distances prove this. This means that as you circle round the South Pole you do not travel huge distances, every distance is proven.
If it was that simple this forum would not exist.
Please provide data. Your posts are basically spam at this point.
-
You are making this up.
Good rebuttal.
If you have something substantial to add, please do.
I will. Measured distances prove the shape of the earth. It is not a circular shape centered on the North Pole. Travel distances prove this. This means that as you circle round the South Pole you do not travel huge distances, every distance is proven.
If it was that simple this forum would not exist.
Please provide data. Your posts are basically spam at this point.
Look up distances between various places, list any you disagree with. The only way they will work is on a sphere.
It would help to know the distance from Cape Town to the Ice Wall.
-
Look up distances between various places, list any you disagree with. The only way they will work is on a sphere.
It would help to know the distance from Cape Town to the Ice Wall.
Please provide data.
-
Look up distances between various places, list any you disagree with. The only way they will work is on a sphere.
It would help to know the distance from Cape Town to the Ice Wall.
Please provide data.
All available, as you know. Google Earth will give you distances, please tell us any that are incorrect.
-
Look up distances between various places, list any you disagree with. The only way they will work is on a sphere.
It would help to know the distance from Cape Town to the Ice Wall.
Please provide data.
All available, as you know. Google Earth will give you distances, please tell us any that are incorrect.
We're done.
-
Look up distances between various places, list any you disagree with. The only way they will work is on a sphere.
It would help to know the distance from Cape Town to the Ice Wall.
Please provide data.
All available, as you know. Google Earth will give you distances, please tell us any that are incorrect.
We're done.
As expected you cannot prove the earth is not round.
-
Look up distances between various places, list any you disagree with. The only way they will work is on a sphere.
It would help to know the distance from Cape Town to the Ice Wall.
Please provide data.
All available, as you know. Google Earth will give you distances, please tell us any that are incorrect.
We're done.
As expected you cannot prove the earth is not round.
Expecting someone to prove a negative? I believe the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is.
-
Look up distances between various places, list any you disagree with. The only way they will work is on a sphere.
It would help to know the distance from Cape Town to the Ice Wall.
Please provide data.
All available, as you know. Google Earth will give you distances, please tell us any that are incorrect.
We're done.
As expected you cannot prove the earth is not round.
Expecting someone to prove a negative? I believe the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is.
Sigh... Okay to help you with that... I challenge you to provide any verifiable, objective evidence that the earth is flat. We've provided many pieces of verifiable, object evidence that the earth is round, including the navigation by polar route around the earth. See: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/fastest-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-by-aeroplane (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/fastest-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-by-aeroplane). So there is a "beyond the Ice Wall". FET fails again.
-
Look up distances between various places, list any you disagree with. The only way they will work is on a sphere.
It would help to know the distance from Cape Town to the Ice Wall.
Please provide data.
All available, as you know. Google Earth will give you distances, please tell us any that are incorrect.
We're done.
As expected you cannot prove the earth is not round.
Expecting someone to prove a negative? I believe the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is.
Sigh... Okay to help you with that... I challenge you to provide any verifiable, objective evidence that the earth is flat. We've provided many pieces of verifiable, object evidence that the earth is round, including the navigation by polar route around the earth. See: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/fastest-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-by-aeroplane (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/fastest-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-by-aeroplane). So there is a "beyond the Ice Wall". FET fails again.
Well, not all of us think there's an ice wall. I personally don't.
Captain Mullins also performed a circumnaviation the conventional way. The route left from JFK airport in New York, passed through New Dehli, then Tokyo, and then arrived back in New York at JFK. That trip had a total flight time of 25 minutes, 53 seconds.
The polar circumnavigation, on the other hand, took over twice as long, with a flight time of 54 hours, 7 minutes, 12 seconds. Now, I realize that the first trip was entirely in the northern hemisphere, and so dealt with shorter distances on both the flat and spherical models, but I wonder what the record for an equatorial circumnavigation by air is, if one exists, and if it's comparable with the polar one, as it should be on a sphere. Ideally, one that crosses the intersection of the Prime Meridian (and 180th meridian) and the Equator on both sides of the globe. Hm. I'll have a look and see if I can find one.
-
Well, not all of us think there's an ice wall. I personally don't.
Please do tell us why you don't "think" there's an ice wall--in a thread on that topic. For this Ice Wall thread, perhaps you'll consider the OP's question please. We've provided VOE of what's beyond the Ice Wall, the RE.
-
Well, not all of us think there's an ice wall. I personally don't.
Please do tell us why you don't "think" there's an ice wall--in a thread on that topic. For this Ice Wall thread, perhaps you'll consider the OP's question please. We've provided VOE of what's beyond the Ice Wall, the RE.
Please leave thread moderation to the mods, if you don't mind. I mentioned it in passing because there *are* threads about it, and there are certain obtuse RE'ers here that would see me stating I didn't think there was an ice wall in one thread, while actively participating in an ice wall debate on another, and would call it out as hypocrisy. Moreover, I felt that it would enrich the OP's experience to know that the ice wall hypothesis is just one of the many "flavors" of the model. This is a discussion forum, not a lecture hall.
Back to the point, your VOE doesn't prove a spherical earth, as a transpolar circumnavigation is still possible on a flat earth - and yes, even on the ice wall model, in theory, though I'd need to see the actual route flown to verify. An aircraft pilot would follow the lines of force, which are curved at the outer rim in the ice wall model by aetheric flow. This would lead the plane to ultimately turn and fly north again relative to the disc, most likely without the pilot's noticing at all, since all the instruments would indicate otherwise.
Just because I don't subscribe to a particular model doesn't mean it doesn't work.
-
Back to the point, your VOE doesn't prove a spherical earth, as a transpolar circumnavigation is still possible on a flat earth - and yes, even on the ice wall model, in theory, though I'd need to see the actual route flown to verify. An aircraft pilot would follow the lines of force, which are curved at the outer rim in the ice wall model by aetheric flow. This would lead the plane to ultimately turn and fly north again relative to the disc, most likely without the pilot's noticing at all, since all the instruments would indicate otherwise.
Just because I don't subscribe to a particular model doesn't mean it doesn't work.
So you need to use special pleading AND ignorance to deal with just one of the pieces of VOE the disproves FET. How sad. I particularly like your resorting to "aethic" flow, something never measured yet you claim produces the same effect as a RE. No one is going to take that seriously.
That's a goof reason not to subscribe to a particular model--when it doesn't work.
-
So you need to use special pleading AND ignorance to deal with just one of the pieces of VOE the disproves FET. How sad. I particularly like your resorting to "aethic" flow, something never measured yet you claim produces the same effect as a RE. No one is going to take that seriously.
I "resort" to aetheric flow just as other physicists "resort" to hypothetical particles and substances when their expectations do not match observations. Fermi guessed that neutrons had to exist in the nuclei of atoms to explain how they worked. Pauli "resorted" to saying Neutrinos must exist because they explained observed results. At the time, the scientific community said these ideas had no basis in reality. They were "pleading." Of course, years later, neutrons and neutrinos were detected. Aether explains much of what we experience here on the flat earth, so if we are pleading when we discuss those effects, it is only in the sense that Fermi and Pauli were.
-
So you need to use special pleading AND ignorance to deal with just one of the pieces of VOE the disproves FET. How sad. I particularly like your resorting to "aethic" flow, something never measured yet you claim produces the same effect as a RE. No one is going to take that seriously.
I "resort" to aetheric flow just as other physicists "resort" to hypothetical particles and substances when their expectations do not match observations. Fermi guessed that neutrons had to exist in the nuclei of atoms to explain how they worked. Pauli "resorted" to saying Neutrinos must exist because they explained observed results. At the time, the scientific community said these ideas had no basis in reality. They were "pleading." Of course, years later, neutrons and neutrinos were detected. Aether explains much of what we experience here on the flat earth, so if we are pleading when we discuss those effects, it is only in the sense that Fermi and Pauli were.
Special pleading is well defined and you're doing it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading) While AWT never claimed that it affects ALL flight instrument to make a transpolar flight seem like it's on a RET, you now plead that it does--without any evidence but your pleading. Fermi had experimental evidence in hand before hypothesis. You have AWT in had then try to argue that it fits the real world evidence. You can't even tell me if the aether is even atomic in nature.
-
So you need to use special pleading AND ignorance to deal with just one of the pieces of VOE the disproves FET. How sad. I particularly like your resorting to "aethic" flow, something never measured yet you claim produces the same effect as a RE. No one is going to take that seriously.
I "resort" to aetheric flow just as other physicists "resort" to hypothetical particles and substances when their expectations do not match observations. Fermi guessed that neutrons had to exist in the nuclei of atoms to explain how they worked. Pauli "resorted" to saying Neutrinos must exist because they explained observed results. At the time, the scientific community said these ideas had no basis in reality. They were "pleading." Of course, years later, neutrons and neutrinos were detected. Aether explains much of what we experience here on the flat earth, so if we are pleading when we discuss those effects, it is only in the sense that Fermi and Pauli were.
Special pleading is well defined and you're doing it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading) While AWT never claimed that it affects ALL flight instrument to make a transpolar flight seem like it's on a RET, you now plead that it does--without any evidence but your pleading. Fermi had experimental evidence in hand before hypothesis. You have AWT in had then try to argue that it fits the real world evidence. You can't even tell me if the aether is even atomic in nature.
You may ought to speak to Tausami, as he's the resident aetheric wind theorist here. I'm just relaying things as I understand them, but I do believe that in the disc model with AWT, as you near the edge, aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc.
-
So you need to use special pleading AND ignorance to deal with just one of the pieces of VOE the disproves FET. How sad. I particularly like your resorting to "aethic" flow, something never measured yet you claim produces the same effect as a RE. No one is going to take that seriously.
I "resort" to aetheric flow just as other physicists "resort" to hypothetical particles and substances when their expectations do not match observations. Fermi guessed that neutrons had to exist in the nuclei of atoms to explain how they worked. Pauli "resorted" to saying Neutrinos must exist because they explained observed results. At the time, the scientific community said these ideas had no basis in reality. They were "pleading." Of course, years later, neutrons and neutrinos were detected. Aether explains much of what we experience here on the flat earth, so if we are pleading when we discuss those effects, it is only in the sense that Fermi and Pauli were.
Special pleading is well defined and you're doing it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading) While AWT never claimed that it affects ALL flight instrument to make a transpolar flight seem like it's on a RET, you now plead that it does--without any evidence but your pleading. Fermi had experimental evidence in hand before hypothesis. You have AWT in had then try to argue that it fits the real world evidence. You can't even tell me if the aether is even atomic in nature.
You may ought to speak to Tausami, as he's the resident aetheric wind theorist here. I'm just relaying things as I understand them, but I do believe that in the disc model with AWT, as you near the edge, aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc.
So just how do you know that "aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc"? Has anyone seen, or in any objective way measured, these alleged flows? Has anyone done any experiment to even correlate these alleged flows with this alleged sort of navigational havoc? Do you have any VOE to support your outlandish (and escalating) claims? Why should the OP believe anything that you've posted in this thread is anything but pleading?
Oh, and Tausami doesn't even know if the atheric flow exists. He does have some interesting math, which he refuses to post. Otherwise, he can't even say it the flows are of matter or energy. He can't explain how the flows have provided the FE with more than a centillion joules, without melting the FE.
-
So just how do you know that "aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc"?
I didn't say I knew. I clearly said that I believe AWT supports that conclusion. If you're going to continue putting things in my mouth, I'm going to have to insist that you buy me dinner first.
-
So just how do you know that "aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc"?
I didn't say I knew. I clearly said that I believe AWT supports that conclusion. If you're going to continue putting things in my mouth, I'm going to have to insist that you buy me dinner first.
You are saying you believe something. How can you believe something if you don't know it's true? Did a trusted fairy tell you to believe? Did it involve clapping your hands?
Oh and to quote you again:
... but I do believe that in the disc model with AWT, as you near the edge, aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc.
-
So just how do you know that "aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc"?
I didn't say I knew. I clearly said that I believe AWT supports that conclusion. If you're going to continue putting things in my mouth, I'm going to have to insist that you buy me dinner first.
You are saying you believe something. How can you believe something if you don't know it's true? Did a trusted fairy tell you to believe? Did it involve clapping your hands?
Oh and to quote you again:
... but I do believe that in the disc model with AWT, as you near the edge, aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc.
You are misunderstanding my statement. I am not using the absolute-faith form of believe (i.e. "I believe in angels"). I'm using the "as far as I know," form. I'm not an expert on AWT, but as far as I know, that's what it says. I could be wrong. If I know something, I will say so. I do know, for example, that you're being obtuse to the point of impossibility, as I've seen direct evidence of it, and there's little point in continuing this conversation if the precise definition and implication of each word I use in a post is going to be called into question.
-
So just how do you know that "aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc"?
I didn't say I knew. I clearly said that I believe AWT supports that conclusion. If you're going to continue putting things in my mouth, I'm going to have to insist that you buy me dinner first.
You are saying you believe something. How can you believe something if you don't know it's true? Did a trusted fairy tell you to believe? Did it involve clapping your hands?
Oh and to quote you again:
... but I do believe that in the disc model with AWT, as you near the edge, aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc.
Every time you bring up AWT remember that Dark Matter is just you being wrong about the theory of gravity. Yet you follow it without supporting evidence. Before you criticize us maybe you should scrutinize your own theories.
-
Every time you bring up AWT remember that Dark Matter is just you being wrong about the theory of gravity. Yet you follow it without supporting evidence. Before you criticize us maybe you should scrutinize your own theories.
How is dark matter relevant to AWT? As an example of a theory, not RET, that has limited direct evidence? How does FET explain the rotation rate of galaxies better?
-
How is dark matter relevant to AWT? As an example of a theory, not RET, that has limited direct evidence?
Dark matter is basically your version of AWT. There's no direct evidence, but we know it's there because of observed phenomenon. We've talked about this before, Gulliver. There is no evidence of Dark matter, and there is no evidence of Aether. However, they are both theories that attempt to explain the currently unexplainable. They are similar in that way.
How does FET explain the rotation rate of galaxies better?
Irrelevant?
-
How is dark matter relevant to AWT? As an example of a theory, not RET, that has limited direct evidence?
Dark matter is basically your version of AWT. There's no direct evidence, but we know it's there because of observed phenomenon. We've talked about this before, Gulliver. There is no evidence of Dark matter, and there is no evidence of Aether. However, they are both theories that attempt to explain the currently unexplainable. They are similar in that way.
How does FET explain the rotation rate of galaxies better?
Irrelevant?
So then why don't you apply Occam's Razor and eliminate AWT in favor of intelligent, benevolent, secretive pixies? Dark matter is the simplest, accurate hypothesis. A previously unknown pervasive superfluid (which might actually just be energy, not a fluid) that for no physical reason moves light and the sun and the moon and the planets and the atmolayer in just the right fashion, and violates the LoTD, and now according to today's expansion causes flight instrument havoc just right to convince a pilot that he's flying a circumpolar route over both poles.Yep, pixies would be a simpler hypothesis and explain more data more accurately.
-
How is dark matter relevant to AWT? As an example of a theory, not RET, that has limited direct evidence?
Dark matter is basically your version of AWT. There's no direct evidence, but we know it's there because of observed phenomenon. We've talked about this before, Gulliver. There is no evidence of Dark matter, and there is no evidence of Aether. However, they are both theories that attempt to explain the currently unexplainable. They are similar in that way.
How does FET explain the rotation rate of galaxies better?
Irrelevant?
So then why don't you apply Occam's Razor and eliminate AWT in favor of intelligent, benevolent, secretive pixies? Dark matter is the simplest, accurate hypothesis. A previously unknown pervasive superfluid (which might actually just be energy, not a fluid) that for no physical reason moves light and the sun and the moon and the planets and the atmolayer in just the right fashion, and violates the LoTD, and now according to today's expansion causes flight instrument havoc just right to convince a pilot that he's flying a circumpolar route over both poles.Yep, pixies would be a simpler hypothesis and explain more data more accurately.
The same suggestion could be made for you. You don't know what dark matter is made of, you don't know what it is, what it does, or where it came from. It's equally ridiculous. Why not pixies that alter gravity? Pixies, in theory, would actually have mass and a gravitational pull that can be measured, whereas dark matter is still unobserved and unverified. You might as well believe in Gravity Pixies, because that's just as viable as "Dark Matter". It would be much simpler than "invisible weightless matter that magically has a gravitational pull".
Until you can prove dark matter without a doubt, don't knock AWT.
-
How is dark matter relevant to AWT? As an example of a theory, not RET, that has limited direct evidence?
Dark matter is basically your version of AWT. There's no direct evidence, but we know it's there because of observed phenomenon. We've talked about this before, Gulliver. There is no evidence of Dark matter, and there is no evidence of Aether. However, they are both theories that attempt to explain the currently unexplainable. They are similar in that way.
How does FET explain the rotation rate of galaxies better?
Irrelevant?
So then why don't you apply Occam's Razor and eliminate AWT in favor of intelligent, benevolent, secretive pixies? Dark matter is the simplest, accurate hypothesis. A previously unknown pervasive superfluid (which might actually just be energy, not a fluid) that for no physical reason moves light and the sun and the moon and the planets and the atmolayer in just the right fashion, and violates the LoTD, and now according to today's expansion causes flight instrument havoc just right to convince a pilot that he's flying a circumpolar route over both poles.Yep, pixies would be a simpler hypothesis and explain more data more accurately.
The same suggestion could be made for you. You don't know what dark matter is made of, you don't know what it is, what it does, or where it came from. It's equally ridiculous. Why not pixies that alter gravity? Pixies, in theory, would actually have mass and a gravitational pull that can be measured, whereas dark matter is still unobserved and unverified. You might as well believe in Gravity Pixies, because that's just as viable as "Dark Matter". It would be much simpler than "invisible weightless matter that magically has a gravitational pull".
Until you can prove dark matter without a doubt, don't knock AWT.
Nope. Dark matter has several characteristics that have made great predictions. The theory explains observations that came after it. Pixies don't. We know what dark matter does and how it does it fits right in with GR. No, dark matter is not weightless. Please do try to keep up. (Saying something is both weightless and has a gravitation pull in the same sentence is a hallmark of a crackpot.) Why can't something that is hard to detect have mass? How would FET explain the rotational speed of galaxies? AWT? At least DM doesn't violate the Laws of TD. oh and again: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-first-indirect-detection-of-dark-matter/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-first-indirect-detection-of-dark-matter/)
-
There's still 0 evidence for dark matter. What you've done is created something magical to explain certain phenomenon that you cannot explain. Dark matter is a crutch for your own ignorance of the workings of the universe.
Funny how there are other (just as plausible) theories out there that successfully explain why galaxies are spinning faster than they should, among other things that are dubiously attributed to dark matter.
Here's one: http://science.time.com/2013/02/26/cosmic-fuggedaboudit-dark-matter-may-not-exist-at-all/
Your own peers cannot come to an agreement.
-
So you need to use special pleading AND ignorance to deal with just one of the pieces of VOE the disproves FET. How sad. I particularly like your resorting to "aethic" flow, something never measured yet you claim produces the same effect as a RE. No one is going to take that seriously.
I "resort" to aetheric flow just as other physicists "resort" to hypothetical particles and substances when their expectations do not match observations. Fermi guessed that neutrons had to exist in the nuclei of atoms to explain how they worked. Pauli "resorted" to saying Neutrinos must exist because they explained observed results. At the time, the scientific community said these ideas had no basis in reality. They were "pleading." Of course, years later, neutrons and neutrinos were detected. Aether explains much of what we experience here on the flat earth, so if we are pleading when we discuss those effects, it is only in the sense that Fermi and Pauli were.
Special pleading is well defined and you're doing it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading) While AWT never claimed that it affects ALL flight instrument to make a transpolar flight seem like it's on a RET, you now plead that it does--without any evidence but your pleading. Fermi had experimental evidence in hand before hypothesis. You have AWT in had then try to argue that it fits the real world evidence. You can't even tell me if the aether is even atomic in nature.
You may ought to speak to Tausami, as he's the resident aetheric wind theorist here. I'm just relaying things as I understand them, but I do believe that in the disc model with AWT, as you near the edge, aetheric flow causes this sort of navigational havoc.
Tausami has also said there is no conclusive experimental evidence supporting AWT so perhaps some discretion is in order when invoking AWT.
-
There's still 0 evidence for dark matter. What you've done is created something magical to explain certain phenomenon that you cannot explain. Dark matter is a crutch for your own ignorance of the workings of the universe.
Funny how there are other (just as plausible) theories out there that successfully explain why galaxies are spinning faster than they should, among other things that are dubiously attributed to dark matter.
Here's one: http://science.time.com/2013/02/26/cosmic-fuggedaboudit-dark-matter-may-not-exist-at-all/
Your own peers cannot come to an agreement.
You just posted how Round Earth scientists can't come to an agreement on the existence of Dark Matter, and then criticised us for being in the exact same place.
Neither party (RE or FE) know what is really going on, but both can and do make hypothesis on how the thing neither of us understand, might be responsible for observable phenomena we can't yet explain in our own respective models.
-
Neither party (RE or FE) know what is really going on, but both can and do make hypothesis on how the thing neither of us understand, might be responsible for observable phenomena we can't yet explain in our own respective models.
This was the conclusion I was trying to highlight. FE and RE are very similar in many respects. I am not criticizing FET by any means though. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. The point I'm trying to get across is that Gulliver attempts to debunk AWT with unfair scrutiny, when he should really be scrutinizing his own scientific theories because, for all intents and purposes, dark matter is very similar to aether... yet he blindly defends dark matter theory because of popular opinion, even when there are RE scientists that do not agree and have come up with equally plausible explanations that make dark matter irrelevant/junk-science.
-
Neither party (RE or FE) know what is really going on, but both can and do make hypothesis on how the thing neither of us understand, might be responsible for observable phenomena we can't yet explain in our own respective models.
This was the conclusion I was trying to highlight. FE and RE are very similar in many respects. I am not criticizing FET by any means though. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. The point I'm trying to get across is that Gulliver attempts to debunk AWT with unfair scrutiny, when he should really be scrutinizing his own scientific theories because, for all intents and purposes, dark matter is very similar to aether... yet he blindly defends dark matter theory because of popular opinion, even when there are RE scientists that do not agree and have come up with equally plausible explanations that make dark matter irrelevant/junk-science.
What hypotheses have been formulated to compete with dark matter?
As an aside, there are no RE scientists, just scientists.
-
Link is above.
-
As an aside, there are no RE scientists, just scientists.
Maybe if they had some RE scientists they could go back and tell everyone else that there has been a horrible oversight. RET not having specialists in earth's shape, is why TFES has such a lead in this research area.
-
As an aside, there are no RE scientists, just scientists.
Maybe if they had some RE scientists they could go back and tell everyone else that there has been a horrible oversight. RET not having specialists in earth's shape, is why TFES has such a lead in this research area.
Reference: http://aerospace.wcc.hawaii.edu/shape.html (http://aerospace.wcc.hawaii.edu/shape.html)
Geodesy is a quite active science with active, paid specialists. Its main journal far outdoes FES in terms of results and publication.
If you'd be so kind as to publish any VOE to support your outlandish claim of "a horrible oversight", we'd support you in seeking the Nobel Prize in physics.
-
As an aside, there are no RE scientists, just scientists.
There are scientists who favor RET and scientists who favor FET. They come in all shapes and sizes.
-
As an aside, there are no RE scientists, just scientists.
There are scientists who favor RET and scientists who favor FET. They come in all shapes and sizes.
Perhaps, although I would not call either of them FE scientists or RE scientists.
-
As an aside, there are no RE scientists, just scientists.
There are scientists who favor RET and scientists who favor FET. They come in all shapes and sizes.
Perhaps, although I would not call either of them FE scientists or RE scientists.
Duly noted
-
As an aside, there are no RE scientists, just scientists.
There are scientists who favor RET and scientists who favor FET. They come in all shapes and sizes.
Please name some FET ones.
-
As an aside, there are no RE scientists, just scientists.
There are scientists who favor RET and scientists who favor FET. They come in all shapes and sizes.
Please name some FET ones.
and Vx, please note that you used the present tense. "There are scientists ... who favor FET."
-
Please name some FET ones.
AWT.
-
Please name some FET ones.
AWT.
That is not a scientist, but a hypothesis. He was asking for a scientist's name.
-
Please name some FET ones.
AWT.
That is not a scientist, but a hypothesis. He was asking for a scientist's name.
I thought he was asking for an alternate theory explaining the rotation of galaxies? At least that's the impression I got.
-
Please name some FET ones.
AWT.
That is not a scientist, but a hypothesis. He was asking for a scientist's name.
I thought he was asking for an alternate theory explaining the rotation of galaxies? At least that's the impression I got.
Oh, well he was responding to your comment about scientists. *shrugs* He will tell you what he wants I guess. I gonna stop micro-managing.
-
As an aside, there are no RE scientists, just scientists.
There are scientists who favor RET and scientists who favor FET. They come in all shapes and sizes.
Perhaps, although I would not call either of them FE scientists or RE scientists.
I reread the discussion, and you're right. My mistake.
Samuel Rowbotham was a legitimate FE scientist. So was Lady Elizabeth Blount, and arguably 80s synth scientist Thomas Dolby (who was actually the first legitimate member of our great society and is still alive today).
-
As an aside, there are no RE scientists, just scientists.
There are scientists who favor RET and scientists who favor FET. They come in all shapes and sizes.
Perhaps, although I would not call either of them FE scientists or RE scientists.
I reread the discussion, and you're right. My mistake.
Samuel Rowbotham was a legitimate FET scientist. So was Lady Elizabeth Blount, and arguably 80s synth scientist Thomas Dolby.
I thought Blount was more of a patronizer of the sciences, providing money to people who wanted to study her cause.
-
The howling winds, hail/snow storms, and hurricane-like weather prevents safe travel beyond the Ice Wall. Most pilots are not brave enough (or stupid enough) to fly into such a dangerous enviroment. The ones who have (if any) have vanished without a trace.
Very convinient. Would it be possible to send an unmanned drone or vehicle on a research trip (suicide) trip?
-
The howling winds, hail/snow storms, and hurricane-like weather prevents safe travel beyond the Ice Wall. Most pilots are not brave enough (or stupid enough) to fly into such a dangerous enviroment. The ones who have (if any) have vanished without a trace.
Very convinient. Would it be possible to send an unmanned drone or vehicle on a research trip (suicide) trip?
I think it is likely that world powers have already done this. The average person does not have the means to accomplish this, though.
-
Convenient that they either found nothing or didn't report it.
I remember you saying that no man or machine could survive there.
-
If they reported it, would that not be an admission of lying?
-
So you need to use special pleading AND ignorance to deal with just one of the pieces of VOE the disproves FET. How sad. I particularly like your resorting to "aethic" flow, something never measured yet you claim produces the same effect as a RE. No one is going to take that seriously.
I "resort" to aetheric flow just as other physicists "resort" to hypothetical particles and substances when their expectations do not match observations. Fermi guessed that neutrons had to exist in the nuclei of atoms to explain how they worked. Pauli "resorted" to saying Neutrinos must exist because they explained observed results. At the time, the scientific community said these ideas had no basis in reality. They were "pleading." Of course, years later, neutrons and neutrinos were detected. Aether explains much of what we experience here on the flat earth, so if we are pleading when we discuss those effects, it is only in the sense that Fermi and Pauli were.
we have directly observed these particles. when neutrino's interact in water they make blue light. this is seen in the glow of a nuclear power plant as it is surrounded by water. light can't come from nowhere.
here's a question... if gravity doesn't exist... why does our atmosphere stay with us and not just fly off beyond the wall?
-
we have directly observed these particles. when neutrino's interact in water they make blue light. this is seen in the glow of a nuclear power plant as it is surrounded by water. light can't come from nowhere.
Actually, those aren't neutrinos. It's called Cherenkov radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation) and it's caused by electrons going faster than the phased speed of light in water.
Neutrino interactions are actually quite uncommon and require very large setups deep underground, away from nuclear reactors, cosmic ray and other forms of background radiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector