1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eclipses

« on: January 16, 2015, 11:32:48 PM »

I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html and

I move that Gulliver change his name to Googler, since he seems to believe that Google is where all the universe's knowledge is housed.  If you can't google it, it must not be real, eh?

Only if you change your name to "I Research Nothing", seems fair.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Long-exposure photography of stars

« on: January 16, 2015, 11:27:25 PM »

They would rather accept a truck load of "I don't knows" then one honest experiments results.

Don't blame them, its like they are larping living in a fantasy world. Reality is boring and they are spicing it up by deluding themselves. Good on em.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No gravity on Earth

« on: January 11, 2015, 10:33:48 PM »

• because: magic

Actually, because math.

This may help: http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light

see?

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No gravity on Earth

« on: January 11, 2015, 10:33:36 PM »

Einstein also said that there is a finite maximum speed in the universe, regardless of the referential, that is the speed of light. So if the earth is accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s2 since roughly 4 billion years, it has reached the maximum velocity a long time ago. We should thus all be floating in the air.

Please read the FAQ. More detailed explanation available here.

Yes, thank you, I read it, and I'm a bit familiar with special relativity and Lorentz' transformations.
But nothing in what I read gives any explanation. I can sum up what I read in the following way:

• there is no gravity (in the sense of Newton or General relativity); rather, the earth is accelerating and we feel it as gravity (equivalence principle)
• nothing can go faster than the speed of light
• but still, the earth accelerates always at g, and also never reaches c
• because: magic

Well, actually, I came up with that last part. But still, it's a far better explanation than what you propose, which is... nothing.

They'll get you with Special relativity, mostly that you can always approach the speed of light and never reach it. Ignoring two things, one that the universe would by now be completely gone due to the lensing effect, two that SR is based on the assumption that general relativity is true.

General Relativity says gravity is real.

If gravity is real then earth cant be flat. so on so forth.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How many people really know the truth ?

« on: December 26, 2014, 06:33:20 AM »

Yeah, but what if its only 32 miles wide?!!?

No 'what if' about it. The Sun is 32 miles in diameter.

Oh great, then whats the parallax of a 32 miles in diameter sun at 3,000 miles above earth?

It is massive and does not correspond with observation in the slightest.

Let me put on my surprised face.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: g is not homogeneous

« on: December 24, 2014, 08:49:45 PM »

This from the guy that said proving something was part of the scientific process?

The entire purpose of science is to prove something. Otherwise, what are we doing?

Its to conclude something, to say, this is the best possible explanation for what we observe, but its impossible to prove something. I mean we can get into semantics and all, but the reason I posted this was because in another thread he took a very hard line definition of what science was meant to do. Prove something is impossible, but to say this is the best explanation for what we observe is quite possible, and leaves science open to do what it does best, be tested time and again.

I found it rather amusing that in another thread he then posts a graphic that clearly omits proving anything, but only concluding and reporting.

Yes, let's get into semantics. Science attempts to conclude something, which is then taken as a proof until further science invalidates it or keeps supporting it. Either way, we're getting into semantics here but I think you understand the point of what Tom and I are saying.

No, I understand the point you are making, and the point Tom is making in this thread.

However in another thread he wanted to take prove very literally. General Relativity can't prove that space is bending due to mass.

With you saying that of course prove in the scientific sense means to simply conclude something best fits the evidence would fly in the face of that, I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of Tom using one definition of the goal of science in one thread, to prove beyond a doubt something, and a completely different definition in another thread, to simply conclude something that best fits the evidence.

But, I digress. I actually rather like you Vaux, don't want to come off like I am attacking you everywhere I go. Merry Christmas!

7

Flat Earth Community / Re: Earth's rotation

« on: December 24, 2014, 05:21:36 PM »

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.

8

Flat Earth Community / Re: Earth's rotation

« on: December 24, 2014, 03:41:19 PM »

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.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work

« on: December 24, 2014, 03:16:14 PM »

The shadow object is easily observable on clear nights. You'll see a blotch of stars missing in a circle shape in the night sky.

See for yourself.

Since you've made your outlandish claim again in this thread, I'll renew my challenge. Please provide evidence (or a citation) for your claim.

The whole, you need to provide proof thing because no one else has seen it doesnt work so well with Vaux, they will just personally insult you and disappear.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: g is not homogeneous

« on: December 24, 2014, 01:21:52 AM »

This from the guy that said proving something was part of the scientific process?

The entire purpose of science is to prove something. Otherwise, what are we doing?

Its to conclude something, to say, this is the best possible explanation for what we observe, but its impossible to prove something. I mean we can get into semantics and all, but the reason I posted this was because in another thread he took a very hard line definition of what science was meant to do. Prove something is impossible, but to say this is the best explanation for what we observe is quite possible, and leaves science open to do what it does best, be tested time and again.

I found it rather amusing that in another thread he then posts a graphic that clearly omits proving anything, but only concluding and reporting.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: g is not homogeneous

« on: December 24, 2014, 01:14:33 AM »

This from the guy that said proving something was part of the scientific process?

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS

« on: December 24, 2014, 12:32:41 AM »

You're still dancing around an argumentum ad populum. Make a coherent argument that doesn't involve a fallacy and then we'll talk, until then you have nothing. You cannot even provide proof that cell-towers work via radio waves. Why is that?

Basically you're saying that if the majority jumps off a bridge you have no problem following along. Is that right or am I making an assumption here?

sigh, and for someone that says they are familiar with Hitchens's razor, you sure are being dense about it.

Sure, thats what I am saying. If the vast majority of scientists and engineers and technicians all tell me that cellphone towers operate via RF, and the only people telling me they don't are the ones saying there is a global conspiracy about the shape of the planet... I'll believe the scientists, engineers and technicians.

If you gave me concrete proof that sonar was used in towers and not RF, then I would be on board, it's that simple.

Until then I will be happily jumping into the water from that bridge, because if you actually knew anything on the subject of import, you would be more than willing to share with me, instead of just say because it might be, it is.

If you choose to discard critical thinking, personal discovery, individuality, freewill, and what-have-you by being spoon fed your information by the majority then more power to you. With this mindset you're not going to get anything out of these discussions.

I don't think we have anything else to discuss here. You might as well change your username to "Lemmingwinks".

As I said, if you knew anything of import, you'd share, instead you go to personal insults. /shrug

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS

« on: December 24, 2014, 12:22:01 AM »

You're still dancing around an argumentum ad populum. Make a coherent argument that doesn't involve a fallacy and then we'll talk, until then you have nothing. You cannot even provide proof that cell-towers work via radio waves. Why is that?

Basically you're saying that if the majority jumps off a bridge you have no problem following along. Is that right or am I making an assumption here?

sigh, and for someone that says they are familiar with Hitchens's razor, you sure are being dense about it.

Sure, thats what I am saying. If the vast majority of scientists and engineers and technicians all tell me that cellphone towers operate via RF, and the only people telling me they don't are the ones saying there is a global conspiracy about the shape of the planet... I'll believe the scientists, engineers and technicians.

If you gave me concrete proof that sonar was used in towers and not RF, then I would be on board, it's that simple.

Until then I will be happily jumping into the water from that bridge, because if you actually knew anything on the subject of import, you would be more than willing to share with me, instead of just say because it might be, it is.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS

« on: December 24, 2014, 12:10:24 AM »

I haven't seen any of this evidence. Rama and inquistive made a claim that there was evidence that GPS worked via satellites. Where is this evidence? Isn't the burden of proof on you to produce this evidence for me? What am I arguing against if you haven't any evidence?

Ridiculous. 

You have to agree that the vastly agreed upon way cell phones work is through radiowaves, satellites and the such. Not saying you agree with it, just that is what the majority of people believe. You are making the claim that they work by sonar, a claim against the greater evidence. You have presented no evidence to this, so we can on the side of the accepted model dismiss your claim without any need of backing evidence.

It's called Hitchens's razor, check it out.

I'm familar with Hitchen's razor and it doesn't apply here.

What you're doing is pulling a argumentum ad populum and then dismissing my claim solely based on that without providing evidence that cellphones work via radio waves/satellites what have you. Your claim is just as ridiculous as mine. Sure, a few people might agree with you, but so what? My mom agrees that I am the best-looking person in the world, but what does that prove? Nothing.

Please provide evidence of your outlandish claims.

So you are saying only a "few" people think that cell phone towers communicate using RF? Do you actually believe that?

I just did a quick google search for how cell phone towers work, and every entry I can open and skim says RF.

When I do a quick google search for "do cell phones use sonar" I get nothing saying that is how they function.

Now the question is, do you now require me to enumerate every person that thinks cell phone towers use RF, or will you just accept that Hitchens's razor does apply here because the vast majority of human beings that know the slightest thing about cell phone towers, believe they function via RF and not via sonar?

If I say they work via RF, and the vast majority of people also think that, and you think its via sonar and very few if any people think that, then the onus of proof is on you. Not us.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS

« on: December 23, 2014, 11:58:11 PM »

I haven't seen any of this evidence. Rama and inquistive made a claim that there was evidence that GPS worked via satellites. Where is this evidence? Isn't the burden of proof on you to produce this evidence for me? What am I arguing against if you haven't any evidence?

Ridiculous. 

You have to agree that the vastly agreed upon way cell phones work is through radiowaves, satellites and the such. Not saying you agree with it, just that is what the majority of people believe. You are making the claim that they work by sonar, a claim against the greater evidence. You have presented no evidence to this, so we can on the side of the accepted model dismiss your claim without any need of backing evidence on our part.

It's called Hitchens's razor, check it out.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS

« on: December 23, 2014, 11:50:16 PM »

As for GPS being the same technology, all the evidence is contrary to your position unless you can show is something new.

This is a claim. Claims need to be substantiated. Please substantiate your claim of evidence, because I haven't seen any.

Not true at all, the onus for proof is on you for making a claim that goes against the vast majority of evidence available. Any claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

17

Flat Earth Community / Re: Earth's rotation

« on: December 23, 2014, 11:44:48 PM »

I'm sorry, I moved the goalposts without responding to you.

You asked for experiments that demonstrate that space time bends, I showed them. You are now moving the goalposts by asking for things that prove that space time bends, which we have said multiple times is not the point of science. Make observations, experiment and conclude, always open for further testing.

There are no scientific proofs.

18

Flat Earth Community / Re: Earth's rotation

« on: December 23, 2014, 11:37:45 PM »

There is no such thing as absolute truth. Everything is open to further testing. Proof is not absolute truth. Aristotile's self described "three proofs that the earth is a globe" are open to interpretation, and are not absolute.

Proof is a conclusion based on evidence, which is exactly what the Scientific Method seeks to create. Once you've concluded something based on evidence, you have created a proof.

See: Every single instance of "proof" used in the history of science.

You flip flop mid statement here, either there is such a thing as a proof or there is not. Which is it? I think you are confusing a mathematical proof with a scientific conclusion.

None of that is proof that space has a fabric, which is "bending". Stop talking nonsense. Why don't you THINK. There are plenty of explanations for those things. Quantum Mechanics perfectly explains those things without needing to "bend space".

How does Quantum Mechanics help you with a flat earth theory?

19

Flat Earth Community / Re: Earth's rotation

« on: December 23, 2014, 10:41:03 PM »

All observations point to space bending to a high degree of confidence.  As has been pointed out in this thread, and you are no doubt willfully ignoring, science is not in the practice of proving things.

Actually, it is.

Steps of the Scientific Method

Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion

Wheres the prove part? I missed it.

Conclusion

Also, please show me where an experiment has shown that space is bending. As far as I know, there is not a device which can detect such a thing.

Surely Albert Einstein, of all people, would have put his hypothesis through the esteemed Scientific Method before publishing his work.

con·clu·sion
kənˈklo͞oZHən/Submit
noun
1. the end or finish of an event or process.
"the conclusion of World War Two"
2. a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.

prove
pro͞ov/Submit
verb
1. demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

One is to say, this is fact, this is the truth. The other is to reach a decision on something. One is concrete, one is open for further testing.

Semantics is a poor debate technique Tom.

I'll give you multiple experiments showing evidence of GR being correct.

1. Perihelion precession of Mercury
2. Deflection of light by the Sun
3. Gravitational redshift of light
4. Gravitational lensing
5. Light travel time delay testing
6. The equivalence principle
7. Frame-dragging tests

So on, so forth.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How many people really know the truth ?

« on: December 23, 2014, 10:29:32 PM »

Yeah, but what if its only 32 miles wide?!!?

No 'what if' about it. The Sun is 32 miles in diameter.

Oh great, then whats the parallax of a 32 miles in diameter sun at 3,000 miles above earth?