Predictions

Quote from: Pointland32 on June 23, 2008, 06:21:50 AM

Did you even read my last post? The theory of gravity also predicts that an object will fall to earth at 9.8ms^-2. How about something that contradicts RE theory?

When I look out the window from my multi-storey office, the horizen is flat. How about that?

Obviously, you are too low to see a curved horizon. The eye is fallible - for example, when I look at my desk, I don't see all the atoms composing it, but that does not mean they are not there.

Obviously? Obviously, the horizen is flat, hence the earth is. You know, scientists are every bit as fallible as the eye, not to mention corruptable.

Obviously, you are too low to see a curved horizon. The eye is fallible - for example, when I look at my desk, I don't see all the atoms composing it, but that does not mean they are not there.

It doesn't mean that they are there either. No one has seen an electron. No one has seen a proton within its electron shell.

There are alternatives to atomic theory. For example, it's possible that matter does not exist at all and instead exists as a series of waves.

See: http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

It doesn't mean that they are there either.

However, we can prove they are there electrons, etc.

No one has seen an individual electron. No one has seen a proton within its electron shell.

And nobody has seen a flat earth, or at least not all at once, like looking at the map. And don't say you looked out your window. I did too, and saw a hill. Thus, the Earth must be round.

However, we can prove they are there electrons, etc.

No. The spherical standing electron wave gives off the exact same properties as the traditional election. See the link for an in depth mathematical description.

And nobody has seen a flat earth

I saw a flat earth the last time I went to the beach. I saw a flat earth the last time I took a cruise to Mexico. I also saw a flat earth the last time I took an international flight. The earth is flat wherever I go.

The RE predicts that the Earth is round. This never has and never will be proven wrong.

I saw a flat earth the last time I went to the beach. I saw a flat earth the last time I took a cruise to Mexico. I also saw a flat earth the last time I took an international flight. The earth is flat wherever I go.

You didn't see a flat earth. You saw a minuscule portion of the Earth that looked flat from your point of view, and made an assumption on the shape of the entire planet based on that tiny observation.

Quote

And nobody has seen a flat earth

I saw a flat earth the last time I went to the beach. I saw a flat earth the last time I took a cruise to Mexico. I also saw a flat earth the last time I took an international flight. The earth is flat wherever I go.

Tom, have you seen the whole earth at once and verified its flatness, or have you only seen bits and pieces of the earth being flat?

I've traveled a great deal of the world and can say it appears to be flat everywhere. I can't really account for Asia though as I've not traveled to Asia. However, most first hand accounts from Asia seem to point to it being flat there as well. Are you inferring that the rest of the earth is flat, but Asia is rounded? The earth is like a snow globe? Europe and NA are on the flat base and Asia is on the rounded portion?

I've traveled a great deal of the world and can say it appears to be flat everywhere. I can't really account for Asia though as I've not traveled to Asia. However, most first hand accounts from Asia seem to point to it being flat there as well. Are you inferring that the rest of the earth is flat, but Asia is rounded? The earth is like a snow globe? Europe and NA are on the flat base and Asia is on the rounded portion?

Perhaps the earth is like a many sided die and you have seen some of the facets, but not the true overall shape.
 

I have never seen any of these edges, either.

This is the most accepted map upon modern society:



Not only is it right, it also makes the most sense.

I don't see any edges on your map either.

That's because there are no edges.

So I guess we can rule out a multi-sided die.

I must ask, how do you expect the ground immediately around you to differ when comparing a large flat plane and rough sphere about 12,500 km across?

Quote from: Pointland32 on June 23, 2008, 04:51:06 AM

Originally, I asked if FE could make any testable predictions, but all I got was "drop something to the ground". So I requested something that contradicts RE theory.

Right, you got a well defined answer to your question.  Not expecting this, you had to change your argument.

Quote

Scientific theories always make testable predictions and the good ones get them right. If FE theory manage to do anything like that, I'd take it more seriously.

The FE predicts that an object released from rest will accelerate towards the Earth at a rate of 9.8m/s^2.  So far, that's been pretty good.

See how The Engineer is only capable of word games? Of course, the question in the OP was imperfectly redacted, and had to be improved. Every one seems to have understood the OP, and only The Engineer sees a problem with the question being polished.

The answer to the OP is: while there are a few things that FE hypothesis do predict, those are, for the most part, because FE "scientists" start with the prediction and retrofit a new hypothesis for every prediction. Lets say, for example, that I want to blame the Sun on the smog problem. I can state a "theory" whereby the morning sun produces the smog, and I can therefore predict that more than half the large cities have a very noticeable grey cloud every morning, and not at any other hour. At least one tenth of this forum's readers can attest the truth of my prediction, so I can pronounce my "theory" a resounding success.

Of course, the question in th OP should be "please tell us about any predictions made by the FE people based on theories not directly designed to explain that particular prediction."

See how The Engineer is only capable of word games? Of course, the question in the OP was imperfectly redacted, and had to be improved. Every one seems to have understood the OP, and only The Engineer sees a problem with the question being polished.

The answer to the OP is: while there are a few things that FE hypothesis do predict, those are, for the most part, because FE "scientists" start with the prediction and retrofit a new hypothesis for every prediction. Lets say, for example, that I want to blame the Sun on the smog problem. I can state a "theory" whereby the morning sun produces the smog, and I can therefore predict that more than half the large cities have a very noticeable grey cloud every morning, and not at any other hour. At least one tenth of this forum's readers can attest the truth of my prediction, so I can pronounce my "theory" a resounding success.

Of course, the question in th OP should be "please tell us about any predictions made by the FE people based on theories not directly designed to explain that particular prediction."

I see that "One Trick Pony" is back.


The OP question:
What predictions does the FE make? 

Not the OP question:
please tell us about any predictions made by the FE people based on theories not directly designed to explain that particular prediction.


The OP, after realizing that the line of questioning is not going the direction he intended, has to change the argument to suit his intended direction.

I must ask, how do you expect the ground immediately around you to differ when comparing a large flat plane and rough sphere about 12,500 km across?

Not much. But when I look out my window I don't see any reason to hypothesize that the earth might be a globe at all. What about an inside-out or banana shaped earth conveniently large enough to create the illusion of living upon a plane? Those ideas as as equally preposterous as a ball-shaped earth, and as equally likely.

The only thing human experience suggests is that the earth is a plane. Therefore the earth is a plane until proven otherwise.

So is there any natural phenomenon that the FE model will predict with more accuracy than the RE model? Or are we just going to play word games all day?

So is there any natural phenomenon that the FE model will predict with more accuracy than the RE model? Or are we just going to play word games all day?

There is no one phenomenon because RE explains away all features of existence as "illusions" and "tricks of the eye".

For example, FE predicts that when you look out your window you will see a flat earth extending farther than the eye can see. RE explains this away as an illusion, that the globe earth is, very conveniently, just large enough to create the perfect experience of living on a plane.

FE predicts that the earth is still and that the celestial bodies move around on their own accord. When we sit on our porch and look at the sun or moon move slowly across the sky on their own we do not observe the earth spinning. RE dogma would have us believe that this is yet another illusion; that the globe earth is spinning tremendously at speeds over a thousand miles an hour – faster than the speed of sound at the equator – despite us being unable to feel this centripetal acceleration.

When we walk off the edge of a chair and observe the surface of the earth, the earth is seen to accelerate upwards towards us. We do not observe a “bending of space-time” or mysterious sub-atomic particles which permeate all of existence attracting bodies through unexplained quantum effects. RE proponents would have us believe that our experience of an accelerating earth is an illusion, that instead the fabric of space-time is bending all around our bodies and accelerating us into the earth, despite a lack of evidence demonstrating so.

The earth is flat literally everywhere we go. Everything we do and every living experience we have is made on a Flat Earth. Not one single thing in human experience suggests that the earth is round. RE'ers conveniently explain that this is all an illusion, that our experiences since birth have been nothing more than one illusion after the next designed to create the perfect experience of living upon a flat earth despite being so ‘obviously’ round.

There is no one phenomenon, because RE explains away all features of existence as "illusions" and "tricks of the eye".

Really I have never been taught that anything was an illusion except for on this forum

For example, FE predicts that when you look out your window you will see a flat earth extending farther than the eye can see. RE explains this away as an illusion, that the globe earth is, very conveniently, just large enough to create the perfect experience of living on a plane.

Funny how the earth is large enough to hold all of the landmasses and oceans that are on it and not to mention the FE map is the same size

FE predicts that the earth is still and that the celestial bodies move around on their own accord. When we sit on our porch and look at the sun move slowly across the sky we do not observe the earth spinning. RE dogma would have us believe that this is yet another illusion; that the globe earth is spinning at tremendous speeds over a thousand miles an hour – faster than the speed of sound at the equator – despite us being unable to feel this centripetal acceleration.

EP. and when you are on a flight and you are cruising along how fast does it "feel" like you are moving?

When we walk off the edge of a chair and observe the surface of the earth, the earth is seen to accelerate upwards towards us. We do not observe a “bending of space-time” or mysterious sub-atomic particles which permeate all of existence attracting bodies through unexplained quantum effects. RE proponents would have us believe that our experience of an accelerating earth is an illusion, that instead “space is bending,” despite a lack of evidence demonstrating so.

Really, I saw a brick fall off a building once and it sure seemed to fall to the earth. and what about time dilation, were those experiments faked?

The earth is flat literally everywhere we go. Everything we do and every living experience we have is made on a Flat Earth. Not one single thing in human experience suggests that the earth is round. RE'ers conveniently explain that this is all an illusion, that our experiences since birth have been nothing more than one illusion after the next designed to create the perfect experience of living upon a flat earth despite being so ‘obviously’ round.

Really I have never seen a flat earth, if i look in one direction it is an ocean where all of the ships that set sail sure seem to drop away as they get out to sea and if I look in another direction I see mountains, so If i had to guess based on what I see, it looks like the earth is a slope that starts off up high an keeps getting lower and lower. But wait if I turn around now it seems that the earth starts off low and gets higher and higher.

Really, I saw a brick fall off a building once and it sure seemed to fall to the earth.

It didn't. The earth accelerated up to the brick.

and what about time dilation, were those experiments faked?

Time Dilation occurs between accelerating frames of references. It would happen on a FE, too.

Really I have never seen a flat earth, if i look in one direction it is an ocean where all of the ships that set sail sure seem to drop away as they get out to sea

The sinking ship effect is not a proof for a Round Earth. It's a proof for a Flat Earth.

Perhaps the most visually stunning fact which proves the earth as a plane is the sinking ship effect. As a ship recedes into the ocean's horizon, distant from the observer, it will appear to the naked eye to disappear from the bottom up into the sea after it touches the horizon line. It has been found that this effect is purely perceptual, that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and restore the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

It's one of the first and primary proofs of a Flat Earth. The fact that a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship demonstrates that the ship is not traveling behind a convex sea.

From the book Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship we read the following:

So you are saying that they are "Illusions" and "tricks of the eye" Now where have I heard that before?

So you are saying that they are "Illusions" and "tricks of the eye" Now where have I heard that before?

The RE explanation for the Sinking Ship is that it's an illusion as well. When an RE'er stands on the coast of a beach and watches a distant ship sink into the earth's horizon it is often remarked "The ship isn't really sinking. That's an illusion. It's just traveling behind the convexity of a round world."

The FE explanation for the event is that the ship really is sinking beyond the limits of human perspective

Quote from: cbarnett97 on June 23, 2008, 07:00:12 PM

So you are saying that they are "Illusions" and "tricks of the eye" Now where have I heard that before?

The RE explanation for the Sinking Ship is that it's another illusion. When one of you stands on the coast of a beach and watches the ship sink into the horizon it is often remarked "The ship isn't really sinking" says the RE'er, "it's just traveling behind the convexity of a round world."

The FE explanation for the event is that the ship really is sinking beyond the limits of human perspective.

Where is the illusion? there is no trick of the eye involved in the RE explanation. We may say it looks like is sinks but that is because it does. the ship falls below our plane that we are at.

Where is the illusion? there is no trick of the eye involved in the RE explanation. We may say it looks like is sinks but that is because it does. the ship falls below our plane that we are at.

RE speculates that the ship is curving around a Round Earth and creating the illusion of its hull sinking into the surface of the sea to a distant observer. The effect creates the illusion of a capsizing ship.

The ship is not actually sinking into the sea. Therefore the RE model proposes an illusion.

So like I said in the RE expanation where is illusion involved. The ship curves around the earth that is why it drops below the horizon. now where is the word perspective needed at any point in the definition. We you use the word sink you are speaking in slang. that is why when you see the words "sinking" ship sinking is always in quotes because it is not the actual definition

But it does look like the ship is sinking when in fact it's not.  So it's still an illusion.

But it does look like the ship is sinking when in fact it's not.  So it's still an illusion.

So can we agree that the sinking ship is an illusion for both RE and FE?