Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #60 on: February 17, 2016, 09:52:35 PM »
Besides, magnetic interference and magnetism can be measured. As such, you can measure if magnetic forces are the cause of effect of attraction on an object. This way you can also rule out magnetism as the attracting force of an object in orbit. And, if that's the case, it makes the theory of gravity much more viable.

I don't believe there are objects orbiting the earth, in space that is. Considering the recent release of the new blue marble photograph, it seems to lack a single anomaly (besides the word sex in the clouds) that could be considered one of the 2,000+ satellites apparently in orbit. Also, given the probabilities, it's very hard to believe that there aren't several satellites crashing into one another on a yearly basis, or more of them crash landing around the planet (since space engineers even say that the satellites are slowly falling back to earth the entire time)
I suspect you are unable to imagine just how much space there actually is. This will go no where.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6669
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #61 on: February 17, 2016, 11:13:40 PM »
Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.

You really need to educate yourself on the history of science. There have been plenty of tests of Newton's and Einstein's Laws of Gravitation.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #62 on: February 18, 2016, 12:48:41 AM »
I am going back a bit, because so much that follows seems to hinge on this.
Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.
You claim "Because masses have no inherent reason to attract." Yet can you give any plausible reason why electric charges attract?
Also, we know that somehow things are "attracted down", so what is the mechanism.Flat earth supporters come up various ideas to explain this. The main ones being:
  • "Universal Acceleration": There are a number of holes in this. One interesting one is that if Einstein's relativity is accepted, we could not have been on earth more than about 45 years! see below [1]
  • "Denspressure": But, if there is no gravity (or UA), what causes the air pressure? In any case i can come up with numerous fallacies in this "hypothesis"
Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere
Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction.
Yes, there is some kind of attraction, but a 200 m diameter ball of concrete would attract a 200 mm diameter ball of concrete with a force of a little over 0.5 gm! Gravitation is a very weak force - if it were otherwise you would be squashed like a dead fly on the earth's surface.
Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere
Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?
The gravitation due to the moon and sun on the earth's surface is extremely small! Tides are caused not so much by the "lifting" of water as causing the water to flow from one part of the earth to another. This explains a number of tidal effects.
  • Small bodies of water are hardly affected at all. Tides will occur only in bodies large enough for water to flow. Even in the Mediterranean Sea tides are small.
  • Tides are greatly affected by the sea-floor.
Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere
That would be a good argument, honestly, if it weren't for the Cavendish experiment proving that there's actual attraction.
The issue with the Cavendish experiment is essentially the same as with any experiment involving the "scientific" method. You approach it with a conclusion, or "hypothesis" in mind, and seek to prove it. Let me get make this clear though, a guy with led balls hanging in his shed in the 18th century is the sole proof of a force we base all of modern astronomical science upon.
Cavendish never set out to "prove gravity". His claimed aim was to "weigh the earth" and find its density. And he did not approach it "with a conclusion, or 'hypothesis' in mind, and seek to prove it." Before Cavendish the density of the earth was expected to be similar to that of the surface rocks - around 2,500 to 3,000 kg/m3 and Newton used this sort of figure to estimate the mass of the earth.
Cavendish, however, found that the density of the earth was 5,448 kg/m3 - a little lower than the accepted figure.
So you are completely wrong in this!
Cavendish did not set out with a conclusion, or 'hypothesis' in mind, and seek to prove it.
Cavendish had no idea that his density would turn out so high.
From the Cavendish result we can calculate the Universal Gravitational Constant G, and his result is within about 1% of the accepted value.

I really cannot understand your logic! You obviously accept radio wave propagation, but you cannot sense it in any way without "instruments" - a receiver! But, you will not accept gravitation that you can sense, though not easily measure without "instruments".


[1] If we accept relativity, and TFES seems to (see http://wiki.tfes.org/Special_Relativity#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light, then we must accept time dilation, etc. If the earth were to start acceleration at 9.8 m/s2 15 billion years ago (I don't know that I agree with the age!) by now, due to time slowing down on the acceleration earth (that is Time Dilation) only 45.5 years would have elapsed on earth! (see http://convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator.html) I would love some "expert" to peruse these figures!

Offline CableDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #63 on: February 21, 2016, 06:27:33 AM »
Because masses have no inherent reason to attract. It is a hypothetical concept, as you show yourself that was wholesale borrowed from a principal of attraction which is a known fact.

Ie: I can pick up a magnet and stick it to a piece of metal, and vice versa. I can not however, take a ball of concrete the size of a city block and demonstrate that a pebble will stick to it, eventhough the principle states that there should be some kind of attraction. Whats that? The earth's gravitational pull is too strong for that experiment to work? Then how can the moon have any influence on Earth, considering Earth is 4 times more massive, and the water the moon supposedly pulls is 200,000 times closer to the Earth?

What inherent reason do magnet have to attract?

Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #64 on: February 21, 2016, 06:44:49 AM »
Magnets do not attract each other.

They establish a flow of subquarks (magnetic monopoles) between their respective south/north poles.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759332#msg759332


There is no such thing as the Cavendish experiment: it failed miserably to explain "attractive gravity".

Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University) demonstrated conclusively that terrestrial gravity is a force OF PRESSURE.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65462.msg1749881#msg1749881

Offline CableDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #65 on: February 21, 2016, 07:05:51 AM »
Besides, magnetic interference and magnetism can be measured. As such, you can measure if magnetic forces are the cause of effect of attraction on an object. This way you can also rule out magnetism as the attracting force of an object in orbit. And, if that's the case, it makes the theory of gravity much more viable.

I don't believe there are objects orbiting the earth, in space that is. Considering the recent release of the new blue marble photograph, it seems to lack a single anomaly (besides the word sex in the clouds) that could be considered one of the 2,000+ satellites apparently in orbit. Also, given the probabilities, it's very hard to believe that there aren't several satellites crashing into one another on a yearly basis, or more of them crash landing around the planet (since space engineers even say that the satellites are slowly falling back to earth the entire time)

Apply simple research and math to your question.

The speed of orbiting satellites ranges, due to elevation and type of orbit, between 1.5 and 10 kilometers per second.  At least make an attempt to comprehend this speed.  Even though the exposure time of the Blue Marble photograph is short it is not short enough to stop the motion of anything moving at this speed.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that the average satellite has a visible surface area of 600 square meters and that it is orbiting at 20,000 km above the surface.

The photograph you are referencing was taken at a distance of 1,600,000 km.

Attempt to at least comprehend the probability of imaging something so small, moving so fast from so far away.


Offline CableDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #66 on: February 21, 2016, 07:08:37 AM »
Magnets do not attract each other.

They establish a flow of subquarks (magnetic monopoles) between their respective south/north poles.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759332#msg759332


There is no such thing as the Cavendish experiment: it failed miserably to explain "attractive gravity".

Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University) demonstrated conclusively that terrestrial gravity is a force OF PRESSURE.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65462.msg1749881#msg1749881

Didn't we already have this discussion?  More precisely, your use of the imperceptible to support a theory wholly based upon perception?

Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #67 on: February 21, 2016, 10:24:53 AM »
You haven't done your homework: long ago during the course of our discussion I provided the link to the physics of the subquark:

The physics of the subquark:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101

There you will find a 100% accurate proof of the existence of the "imperceptible".
« Last Edit: February 21, 2016, 12:04:45 PM by sandokhan »

Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #68 on: February 21, 2016, 08:45:49 PM »
Besides, magnetic interference and magnetism can be measured. As such, you can measure if magnetic forces are the cause of effect of attraction on an object. This way you can also rule out magnetism as the attracting force of an object in orbit. And, if that's the case, it makes the theory of gravity much more viable.

I don't believe there are objects orbiting the earth, in space that is. Considering the recent release of the new blue marble photograph, it seems to lack a single anomaly (besides the word sex in the clouds) that could be considered one of the 2,000+ satellites apparently in orbit. Also, given the probabilities, it's very hard to believe that there aren't several satellites crashing into one another on a yearly basis, or more of them crash landing around the planet (since space engineers even say that the satellites are slowly falling back to earth the entire time)

Apply simple research and math to your question.

The speed of orbiting satellites ranges, due to elevation and type of orbit, between 1.5 and 10 kilometers per second.  At least make an attempt to comprehend this speed.  Even though the exposure time of the Blue Marble photograph is short it is not short enough to stop the motion of anything moving at this speed.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that the average satellite has a visible surface area of 600 square meters and that it is orbiting at 20,000 km above the surface.

The photograph you are referencing was taken at a distance of 1,600,000 km.

Attempt to at least comprehend the probability of imaging something so small, moving so fast from so far away.

Its not a photograph. It is a composite and nasa admits it. It is not a photo taken from 1.6 million km away... It is thousands of photos taken from low orbit stitched together. I'm on mobile but feel free to search for the corresponding article from NASA about the creation of this graphic you mistakenly are calling a photograph.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #69 on: February 21, 2016, 10:18:52 PM »
Its not a photograph. It is a composite and nasa admits it. It is not a photo taken from 1.6 million km away... It is thousands of photos taken from low orbit stitched together. I'm on mobile but feel free to search for the corresponding article from NASA about the creation of this graphic you mistakenly are calling a photograph.
I am really interested, when you can access a computer please find the
"corresponding article from NASA about the creation of this graphic" which justifies your claim
"It is thousands of photos taken from low orbit stitched together."!

And I thought you claimed that you did not believe in anything orbiting the earth, so just how were these "photos taken from low orbit"?
You claim this and claim that, yet never have any evidence!

There are numerous things that I claim are evidence. Here are just a few related to satellites:
  • Right from the first satellite, Sputnik I, launched  October 4, 1957, radio HAMs reported the signal on 20.007 MHz at the correct time for the given location - bit hard to fake that! Yes, I was there with the HAMs at the time!
  • There are numerous photos and videos of the ISS, some as just a moving light others as a rough shape and many with larger telescopes show the shapes clearly.
  • We can download geostationary weather satellite photos any time we like from say: http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/
  • TV from geostationary TV satellites requires the receiving antennas to be precisely aligned (±0.5° or so) with a direction that aligns exactly with the published position of the satellite! Triangulation from a number of locations can pin-point the satellite's location, including altitude!
From Japanese Himawari Satellite taken 21:30 UTC, 21 Feb 2016 (30 min ago)
Shows Cyclone Winston, now west of Fiji and a heavy cloud mass giving a lot of rain the south eastern corner of the Gulf of Carpentaria!
Don't worry, I know you won't take the slightest notice of anything I write, but just possibly there are some less indoctrinated sheep around.
I have said it before, but it seems to me that Flat Earthers look out the window (or out to sea), see it looks flat, decide on the spot that the erath must be flat! From then on every bit of contrary evidence has to be explained away by fake perspective, bendy light, a lot of pure guesswork about the sun, moon and stars and then accusing thousands of outright lying and billions of being fooled!

It must be so reassuring to be one of the few to be able to ignore all the evidence and know the truth.
Why else would you have picked such a smug sounding forum name as "TheTruthIsOnHere". I get very suspicious when someone claims to "have the truth". It reminds me of all the door-to-door pushers of the various sects - each claiming to have the TRUTH at the exclusion of all others.

BTW: technically all digital photographs (other than pure monochrome) are composites made from three or more sensors and combined in various ways.

*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #70 on: February 21, 2016, 10:51:32 PM »
Besides, magnetic interference and magnetism can be measured. As such, you can measure if magnetic forces are the cause of effect of attraction on an object. This way you can also rule out magnetism as the attracting force of an object in orbit. And, if that's the case, it makes the theory of gravity much more viable.



I don't believe there are objects orbiting the earth, in space that is. Considering the recent release of the new blue marble photograph, it seems to lack a single anomaly (besides the word sex in the clouds) that could be considered one of the 2,000+ satellites apparently in orbit. Also, given the probabilities, it's very hard to believe that there aren't several satellites crashing into one another on a yearly basis, or more of them crash landing around the planet (since space engineers even say that the satellites are slowly falling back to earth the entire time)

Apply simple research and math to your question.

The speed of orbiting satellites ranges, due to elevation and type of orbit, between 1.5 and 10 kilometers per second.  At least make an attempt to comprehend this speed.  Even though the exposure time of the Blue Marble photograph is short it is not short enough to stop the motion of anything moving at this speed.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that the average satellite has a visible surface area of 600 square meters and that it is orbiting at 20,000 km above the surface.

The photograph you are referencing was taken at a distance of 1,600,000 km.

Attempt to at least comprehend the probability of imaging something so small, moving so fast from so far away.

Its not a photograph. It is a composite and nasa admits it. It is not a photo taken from 1.6 million km away... It is thousands of photos taken from low orbit stitched together. I'm on mobile but feel free to search for the corresponding article from NASA about the creation of this graphic you mistakenly are calling a photograph.

http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/html/as17-148-22727.html



Sources are not composite images of the Earth.

The Russians have taken at least one picture I am aware of that is not a composite.  Taken by a satellite I can not remember the name of.

Offline CableDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #71 on: February 22, 2016, 03:06:35 AM »
Besides, magnetic interference and magnetism can be measured. As such, you can measure if magnetic forces are the cause of effect of attraction on an object. This way you can also rule out magnetism as the attracting force of an object in orbit. And, if that's the case, it makes the theory of gravity much more viable.

I don't believe there are objects orbiting the earth, in space that is. Considering the recent release of the new blue marble photograph, it seems to lack a single anomaly (besides the word sex in the clouds) that could be considered one of the 2,000+ satellites apparently in orbit. Also, given the probabilities, it's very hard to believe that there aren't several satellites crashing into one another on a yearly basis, or more of them crash landing around the planet (since space engineers even say that the satellites are slowly falling back to earth the entire time)

Apply simple research and math to your question.

The speed of orbiting satellites ranges, due to elevation and type of orbit, between 1.5 and 10 kilometers per second.  At least make an attempt to comprehend this speed.  Even though the exposure time of the Blue Marble photograph is short it is not short enough to stop the motion of anything moving at this speed.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that the average satellite has a visible surface area of 600 square meters and that it is orbiting at 20,000 km above the surface.

The photograph you are referencing was taken at a distance of 1,600,000 km.

Attempt to at least comprehend the probability of imaging something so small, moving so fast from so far away.

Its not a photograph. It is a composite and nasa admits it. It is not a photo taken from 1.6 million km away... It is thousands of photos taken from low orbit stitched together. I'm on mobile but feel free to search for the corresponding article from NASA about the creation of this graphic you mistakenly are calling a photograph.

It's not a photograph but it's a bunch of photos.

Do the words photograph and photo mean different things to you?

You tell me that I should look for information regarding the topic at hand, which by your instigation is the recent image Blue Marble.  The recent image was done by the Deep Space Climate Observatory satellite.  The photo in question was taken from a distance of 1.6 million km away.  This is not, in any way, low earth orbit.

It seems to me that you are the one in need of doing actual research.

Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #72 on: February 22, 2016, 06:43:44 AM »
I never told you to do anything dawg... I cant find the article but I just read recently from the artist behind the image about how he used hundreds of photos, something like 4.5gb a piece, on the official nasa website. Can you give me a source for the info that this was taking by your the magic satellite floating in space capable of honing in on earth from way beyond its orbit? Yall can believe what you want but I refuse to believe we have the ability to do the shit NASA claims they do, round earth or not.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #73 on: February 22, 2016, 12:23:48 PM »
I never told you to do anything dawg... I cant find the article but I just read recently from the artist behind the image about how he used hundreds of photos, something like 4.5gb a piece, on the official nasa website. Can you give me a source for the info that this was taking by your the magic satellite floating in space capable of honing in on earth from way beyond its orbit? Yall can believe what you want but I refuse to believe we have the ability to do the shit NASA claims they do, round earth or not.
I do find it quite amusing really! You refuse to believe any satellite is real even though there is abundant evidence but you:
  • believe the the sun magically rotates above on a funny, though quite unexplained, spiral sort of motion.
  • believe the sunlight bends in amazing ways for the sunrise and sunset directions to magically match the exact locations predicted by the rotating globe earth.
  • believe the sunlight bends in amazing ways for the sunrise and sunset times to exactly match the times predicted by the rotating globe earth.
  • believe the sunlight and moonlight bends in amazing ways for the sun and moon to stay the same size and shape from rising to setting.
  • believe that somehow this odd spiralling sun and moon can cause the moon phases and eclipses - usually some other completely imaginary bodies are postulated - yet these event are easily explained and predicted for the globe earth.
  • believe that even though the sun travels quite different distances in the various seasons it still manages to rotate exactly once each 24 hours.
  • believe that the earth magically has kept accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s2 since the earth began. I won't scare you now with the distance it might have travelled - of course you may have some other explanation for gravity!
  • believe in some funny sort of perspective that appears to make ships, the sun and the moon disappear behind the horizon in exactly the way predicted by the globe!
  • believe that the planets and stars are only tiny spots of light, yet when observed with powerful telescopes show such amazing detail.
You can believe all this and much more magical stuff, yet cannot accept say gravitation that has been demonstrated by hundreds of measurements! You know something, I will stick to something simple like the globe earth!

Yet I have seen Flat Earthers (maybe not you) call Newton an Alchemist - really you need some witches and wizards to explain the magic needed in any flat earth model and that is before having no map to show the true shape, dimensions and location of the continents!

Come off it! I prefer to keep away from all the magic needed to explain the flat earth! A lot of the problem is that so few flat earthers take the trouble to find out how their own "model" really works (or doesn't)!

Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #74 on: February 22, 2016, 04:51:16 PM »
I never told you to do anything dawg... I cant find the article but I just read recently from the artist behind the image about how he used hundreds of photos, something like 4.5gb a piece, on the official nasa website. Can you give me a source for the info that this was taking by your the magic satellite floating in space capable of honing in on earth from way beyond its orbit? Yall can believe what you want but I refuse to believe we have the ability to do the shit NASA claims they do, round earth or not.
I do find it quite amusing really! You refuse to believe any satellite is real even though there is abundant evidence but you:
  • believe the the sun magically rotates above on a funny, though quite unexplained, spiral sort of motion.
  • believe the sunlight bends in amazing ways for the sunrise and sunset directions to magically match the exact locations predicted by the rotating globe earth.
  • believe the sunlight bends in amazing ways for the sunrise and sunset times to exactly match the times predicted by the rotating globe earth.
  • believe the sunlight and moonlight bends in amazing ways for the sun and moon to stay the same size and shape from rising to setting.
  • believe that somehow this odd spiralling sun and moon can cause the moon phases and eclipses - usually some other completely imaginary bodies are postulated - yet these event are easily explained and predicted for the globe earth.
  • believe that even though the sun travels quite different distances in the various seasons it still manages to rotate exactly once each 24 hours.
  • believe that the earth magically has kept accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s2 since the earth began. I won't scare you now with the distance it might have travelled - of course you may have some other explanation for gravity!
  • believe in some funny sort of perspective that appears to make ships, the sun and the moon disappear behind the horizon in exactly the way predicted by the globe!
  • believe that the planets and stars are only tiny spots of light, yet when observed with powerful telescopes show such amazing detail.
You can believe all this and much more magical stuff, yet cannot accept say gravitation that has been demonstrated by hundreds of measurements! You know something, I will stick to something simple like the globe earth!

Yet I have seen Flat Earthers (maybe not you) call Newton an Alchemist - really you need some witches and wizards to explain the magic needed in any flat earth model and that is before having no map to show the true shape, dimensions and location of the continents!

Come off it! I prefer to keep away from all the magic needed to explain the flat earth! A lot of the problem is that so few flat earthers take the trouble to find out how their own "model" really works (or doesn't)!

What you fail to account for is the things that are predicted by a globe earth, are the very things they used to predict that the Earth was a globe. Long before we were somehow launching satellites into deep space and maintaining their course, or sending humans through massive belts of radiation to land on the moon and take perfectly framed photographs for us, it was only the movements of the celestial bodies that led people to adopt the globe model. And it wasn't instantaneously accepted, or precisely matching what we observe. It took concessions like Earth being tilted on an axis, its heliocentric orbit elliptical, our moon spinning the opposite direction around the earth than we observe, and pseudo-scientific forces like universal gravitation to hold the model together.

Other than that you have never seen me claim to know anything. Especially the things you listed in your bullet points. I am here to discover the ways that the phenomena we experience on Earth can be explained in alternative ways. I do however hold that Man has never been on the moon, the photos from space are fake (especially photos of satellites) and that universal gravitation is a fallacy. Other than that I couldn't tell you how the sun and moon work. I can also tell you that I don't approach our existence as a mere accident, a lucky coincidence amid a massive explosion. I don't believe we are an insignificant speck in the universe, relying on a fairy tale "Goldilocks" zone to evolve from single cell organisms into apes into man.

So its obvious to me we are coming from two very different perspectives in the first place. I am intrigued by the "flat-earth" for philosophical reasons just as much as you are adhered to the "globe-earth" for scientific reasons. I appreciate your vigor for debate, and I respect your opinions, however I'm not here to prove anything to anyone, or be proven anything by anyone. Strictly here for interesting discussion on the possibilities of alternate views of our existence, with the caveat that I am an Agnostic at heart. I would never pretend to "know" anything, and I simply don't put as much faith in Man as those that pretend to know. "TheTruthIsOnHere" doesn't mean I know the Truth, or have the truth as you have said a few times... it means the truth of our existence is HERE, not THERE. I prefer to look inward as opposed to outwards in my meditation, because if man can not know himself, how can he expect to know the entire universe.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #75 on: February 23, 2016, 02:05:19 AM »
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You can believe all this and much more magical stuff, yet cannot accept say gravitation that has been demonstrated by hundreds of measurements! You know something, I will stick to something simple like the globe earth!

Yet I have seen Flat Earthers (maybe not you) call Newton an Alchemist - really you need some witches and wizards to explain the magic needed in any flat earth model and that is before having no map to show the true shape, dimensions and location of the continents!

Come off it! I prefer to keep away from all the magic needed to explain the flat earth! A lot of the problem is that so few flat earthers take the trouble to find out how their own "model" really works (or doesn't)!
What you fail to account for is the things that are predicted by a globe earth, are the very things they used to predict that the Earth was a globe. Long before we were somehow launching satellites into deep space and maintaining their course, or sending humans through massive belts of radiation to land on the moon and take perfectly framed photographs for us, it was only the movements of the celestial bodies that led people to adopt the globe model. And it wasn't instantaneously accepted, or precisely matching what we observe. It took concessions like Earth being tilted on an axis, its heliocentric orbit elliptical, our moon spinning the opposite direction around the earth than we observe, and pseudo-scientific forces like universal gravitation to hold the model together.
You say: "What you fail to account for is the things that are predicted by a globe earth, are the very things they used to predict that the Earth was a globe.", but a lot of the things I mention are simple things like sunrise, sunset times and directions - anyone can check them!

A small question! However would you or anyone have known about these "massive belts of radiation" or the thermosphere if earlier space probes and satellites had not been launched to measure them? Answers from YOU please! NASA knew a lot more about the Van Allen belts than you ever will, and launch the moon missions on an off-ecliptic path to avoid as much as possible!

Whyever are these thing concessions? They are simple a part of the structure of the solar system.
You really take no notice of any explanations that I give! You still come up with "our moon spinning the opposite direction around the earth than we observe", yet I have tried to explain that the apparent rotation of the sun and moon are mainly the earth's rotation.
And you still come up with "pseudo-scientific forces like universal gravitation to hold the model together"! You have never tried to answer what Cavendish et. al. measured with the hundreds of experiments performed! You still cannot say why gravitation is pseudo-scientific when magnetic and electrostatic forces are real - what gives?
Many of the things I listed I can observe with my own observations.
A "dyed in the wool" flat earther asked "It is baffling at times to understand just how REers can go on and on expressing their beliefs without opening their eyes and seeing what is past their text books and out the door of their lab".
I do keep my eyes open and what do I see?
  • The Earth looks flat - it does, it's big!
  • On a clear day looking out to sea the sky-horizon interface is a sharp line (it is only about 5 km away!). On a flat earth it would have to fade into the distance with no distinct boundary.
  • The sun appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon.
  • The sun stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - it sometimes seems a bit bigger at sunrise and sunset.
  • The sun always appears to be a disk, though sometimes a bit distorted at sunrise and sunset.
  • Likewise the moon appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon.
  • The moon stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - it sometimes seems a bit bigger at moonrise and moonset.
  • The moon always appears to show the same face wherever it is in the sky. (And from wherever we observe it - have travelled for this observation).
  • The full moon always appears to be a circle, though sometimes a bit distorted at moonrise and moonset.
Note that none of this is direct evidence of a rotating earth, but I believe is strong evidence of a Globe with a distant (far further than the earths size) sun and moon. So many of these points are "explained away" by TFES using "perspective", "bendy light" (massive refraction), extreme "magnification" by the atmosphere or simply ignored. These explanations are simply quoted with no justification at all!

I could go on about the direction of sunrise and sunset etc.

Of these, number (1) might indicate a flat earth, but then when we try to work out what the sun and moon are doing, we get into big trouble.
The Flat Earth movement just takes (1) and says "The earth is flat", then gets into terrible trouble explaining away all of the others with fanciful ideas of perspective, bending light, "celestial gears", universal acceleration (powered by "dark energy") and on and on.

But all the other points are far more simply explained on a Globe Earth, though not necessarily rotating. The Heliocentric Globe model came from much more detailed study of the motions of the planets. Mind a bit of logic would show that it would be strange to have all of the sun, moon, planets and stars moving (not simply rotating) about a comparitively small earth - and that is before we bring Einstein into it!

There are more points you can see around every day (like the movement of the stars at night!) that are hard to explain on any flat earth model without resorting to nothing more than guesswork about strange things like celestial gears and aetheric whirlpools etc.

Even the problems with the stationary Globe earth were found in the past from observations made without modern instruments. Largely eyes and simple (though large) angle measuring equipment.

Honestly, I find that the Globe Earth conforms far better to the Zetetic approach than all the imagination and guesswork needed to support any Flat Earth model!

I guess there's no more that I can say. It's all up to you, but sometimes you really do have to look around you, look a bit more deeply into the various "models" (especially the complications you get into with any flat earth models) and start believing (though selectively!) what others have learnt from their investigations. As I said though you do have to be selective - there is a lot of rubbish out there.

Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #76 on: February 23, 2016, 04:12:51 AM »
You're right, how stupid could I be. We are an insignificant spec in the cosmos after all. Gravity does exist even though they've never found a particle responsible, a rudimentary experiment in a shed is all we needed to prove it. I guess all the astronomers were foolish to think they could predict the movement of the stars and planets, and eclipses of the sun and moon without the heliocentric theory showing them the way. I'm so stupid for not trusting we went to the moon with technology equivalent to a speak and spell. Thanks for opening my eyes to the folly of my ways guy on the internet. What would the flat earth society do without such a dedicated dissenting voice here to bring them back to (globular)earth. I now am comfortable knowing that I know the knowledge that I didn't know I could know. Go home guys, the mysteries of the universe are solved. Black holes and dark matter, quantum mechanics and other stuff you need a doctorate to pretend to understand are what drives it all. No way we are infinite beings on an infinite plane created by some kind of infinite higher power. Just space dust.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #77 on: February 23, 2016, 07:16:44 AM »
You're right, how stupid could I be. We are an insignificant spec in the cosmos after all. Gravity does exist even though they've never found a particle responsible, a rudimentary experiment in a shed is all we needed to prove it  . . . . . . . . . . .
Black holes and dark matter, quantum mechanics and other stuff you need a doctorate to pretend to understand are what drives it all. No way we are infinite beings on an infinite plane created by some kind of infinite higher power. Just space dust.
I won't try to answer all of this, or even argue against the flat earth, just give you my take on what you have written.
  • I don't believe I claimed anywhere that you were stupid, I did say that "As I said though you do have to be selective - there is a lot of rubbish out there."
  • Do you need to feel big and important! with your "We are an insignificant spec in the cosmos after all." Just how big is your God, I would much prefer to see God as "outside of space and time", how else He "be everywhere" and span all of time "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending"? No, I do not believe the (unknown) size of the universe is a problem!
  • No, "they've never found a particle responsible" for gravitation, but do you think that might just be that just as gravitation is incredibly weak, the "graviton" (IF we find it I guess that's what it will be called) might be an incredible low energy particle? A "guess" is that a graviton might have an energy of 1.0×10-37 Joules, where the energy of a photon of green light would be about 4x10-19 Joules - not much more than guesswork I might add.
  • You blithely claim "a rudimentary experiment in a shed is all we needed to prove it." It was hardly rudimentary! Take a look at
    Quote
    A notoriously shy man (it has been postulated that he was autistic[1]), Cavendish was nonetheless distinguished for great accuracy and precision in his researches into the composition of atmospheric air, the properties of different gases, the synthesis of water, the law governing electrical attraction and repulsion, a mechanical theory of heat, and calculations of the density (and hence the mass) of the Earth. His experiment to measure the density of the Earth has come to be known as the Cavendish experiment.
    On top of that numerous similar experiments (I have the details of over 60) have verified his result! Your calling it a rudimentary experiment in a shed is quite misleading. It is an extremely difficult experiment. BTW Do you get all you information from Flat Earth Youtube videos?
  • Sure there are things in every area where you need a PhD to comprehend "Black holes and dark matter, quantum mechanics", but this is not restricted to Cosmology. But there is absolutely no need to understand all that (I certainly don't, nor necessarily even believe all of it[2]) to see the shape of the earth.
  • So you are claiming you are one of these "infinite beings on an infinite plane". I would not claim to be anything approaching "god-like". I will leave that to the One Who created all this! And no i would not call us "Just space dust"
You do have to realise that there are literally millions of Christians out there that do not go with the Flat Earth. Now I don't doubt that many of those never give it a thought, but are many at all the big Universities (including Berkeley etc) who most certainly go with the Heliocentric Globe Earth. They probably differ tremendously in their detailed beliefs. It is interesting that the site "creation.com", which, as you can imagine, is very conservative is definitely not for the flat earth! see http://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism.
I didn't mean to write this much! I get carried away and ramble on.

[1] Many with "autism" (Aspergers Spectrum Disorder) have extreme capability in a few areas - they are Savants, but have problems interacting with people and that does fit Henry Cavendish!

[2] With a lot of this advanced Cosmology I might glance at it and think "that's interesting!" and let it brush over me! I don't try to follow it, because so much of it is in a state of flux. I find a lot of the astronomical observations are very interesting, but, for me Cosmology has no impact at all on the basic Heliocentric Globe Earth!

Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #78 on: February 23, 2016, 08:25:06 AM »
For me Cosmology has no impact at all on the basic Heliocentric Globe Earth!

No wonder you are a RE believer.

If you want anybody to believe you that the Earth is round, for starters you must address the Faint Young Sun Paradox.

Until then, anything you say amounts to nothing.


FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290

The Faint Young Sun Paradox remains to this day one of the most devastating proofs against the spherical earth hypothesis (not nearly enough time for the earth's formation/evolution).

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #79 on: February 23, 2016, 09:11:32 AM »
The Faint Young Sun Paradox remains to this day one of the most devastating proofs against the spherical earth hypothesis (not nearly enough time for the earth's formation/evolution).
When a few others start bothering about it I will stick with what I can see!