Discussion on Dark Energy

Quote from: zork on November 06, 2010, 03:31:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 06, 2010, 03:13:32 PM

It is absolutely absurd that RE'ers continue to cling onto gravity and and explain away its failings with invisible matter and undetectable energies. It is really just a failure of the RET model as a whole.

 Stick to the scales. RET model isn't the model of the entire universe. It's only model of the shape of the Earth and workings in the local scale. And isn't it totally absurd that the FE hasn't even worked out the working model yet? Which can explain how things work locally. Like seasons, day, night, sunset, sunrise and so on.

The seasons, day, night sunset, and sunrise have already been explained long ago. Please read Earth Not a Globe. Also see the Wiki for explanations.

Explained. Yes. But I was asking for the working model. Like the one below for the RE in local scale. If they are explained correctly then there would be no problems to build the working model? If you can't then they are not explained correctly. What it is then?

And yes, the RET model is a model of the entire universe. Due to Astronomical Parallax on a spherical body the size of the universe is inferred.

No, it isn't. Even the Rowbotham didn't elaborate anything in the relation of universe or galaxies. He may have menitoned then but nothing more specific. Universe may be connected to gravity and other phenomenons which can be observed locally but RET is not the theory of the entire universe. You must get the basic local workings clear first before you can go and try to explain the workings of the entire universe.

RE model:

I notice in the model above, the sun shines like a spot light over the earth. It is not a ball. I also note how close the sun is to earth in your working model and that it is not millions of times bigger than earth. Finally there seems to be a moon, and a smaller anti-moon just above Spain on your model. So to make your model work, designers have had to steal all the elements from FET.

I notice in the model above, the sun shines like a spot light over the earth. It is not a ball. I also note how close the sun is to earth in your working model and that it is not millions of times bigger than earth. Finally there seems to be a moon, and a smaller anti-moon just above Spain on your model. So to make your model work, designers have had to steal all the elements from FET.

What? Did you hit your head or something?

I notice in the model above, the sun shines like a spot light over the earth. It is not a ball. I also note how close the sun is to earth in your working model and that it is not millions of times bigger than earth. Finally there seems to be a moon, and a smaller anti-moon just above Spain on your model. So to make your model work, designers have had to steal all the elements from FET.

*sigh*  Yes Thork, we all know that it's not a scale model and the sun is depicted as a spotlight.  And no, I'm not quite sure what the extra "anti-moon" is (it doesn't sow up in other photos that I've seen of similar devices).  However, for the sake of demonstrating the relevant concepts, that is all irrelevant.  The fact is that such a simple RE model is able to demonstrate the RE concepts of sunrise, sunset, lunar phases, solar and lunar eclipses, equinoxes and solstices.  I have challenged FE'ers numerous times to develop a similar device to demonstrate the FE equivalent of such concepts, yet no one seems to be interested.  I wonder why that is.

 It seems to be some knob for turning the Earth. There are others if someone dislikes the current one. For example
http://www.germanclockdistributors.co.uk/tellurium-and-astrolaubuium-772-0.html
http://www.feinwerktechnikleipzig.de/Astronomy-Geography/Tellurium_TL08_05_06/tellurium_tl08_05_06.html

 And mechanical planetary models are also nice.
http://www.oobject.com/category/mechanical-planetary-models/

It seems to be some knob for turning the Earth.

There is a knob for turning the earth? Who uses that, God?


Minus the knob for turning the earth, this one suffers all the same problems as the one before. Spot light sun, close promixmity etc etc. I particularly like the pseudolite aerial at the north pole.

This one poaches other ideas from FET. Look at all the celestial gears!

I have challenged FE'ers numerous times to develop a similar device to demonstrate the FE equivalent of such concepts, yet no one seems to be interested.  I wonder why that is.

Check out the prices of these bad boys and I think you will have your answer!
http://www.germanclockdistributors.co.uk/tellurium-and-astrolaubuium-772-0.html

Ok, I had a bit of a joke, but if FE went to the trouble of making a model, it is that easy to rip into them. Its a lot of work to achieve very little.

Minus the knob for turning the earth, this one suffers all the same problems as the one before. Spot light sun, close promixmity etc etc. I particularly like the pseudolite aerial at the north pole.

Except that you are troubled by some details can you show what is wrong with its workings? And how the model works differently if you make the "sun" a glowing sphere(it's not that hard to do) and put it farther away?
 We don't talk about the design details here but about the working of the model. If you can't show that there is something wrong with the model itself except some irrelevant details which you personally don't like then stop the trolling.

This one poaches other ideas from FET. Look at all the celestial gears!

It's from the year 1780 when there was not such thing as FET and I don't see any celestial gears there also. You don't have a glue what the celestial gears on the FET are. You really are good building an image of doofus for self.

but if FE went to the trouble of making a model, it is that easy to rip into them. Its a lot of work to achieve very little.

  Sure, like you do it is so easy to complain about the details which you don't like but if the model is good then you can't find any really big flaws in it. You haven't done that for RE model. And RE models are from middle ages if not from earlier ages. What is FE problem? Can't you find a plate and couple of spheres and put these spheres to rotate above the plate?

What is FE problem? Can't you find a plate and couple of spheres and put these spheres to rotate above the plate?

Sure, but what good would that do?

It seems like an art project more than a science project.

Quote from: zork on November 07, 2010, 11:04:42 AM

What is FE problem? Can't you find a plate and couple of spheres and put these spheres to rotate above the plate?

Sure, but what good would that do?

It seems like an art project more than a science project.

Since no model of the FE will match its predictions to reality, I guess you're right. It would do FET no good, which must be the reason you 'can't' make one. Good to know. Thanks!

Ok, I had a bit of a joke, but if FE went to the trouble of making a model, it is that easy to rip into them. Its a lot of work to achieve very little.

On the contrary.  By having a model that can demonstrate various basic cosmological concepts, it would go a very long way to show that the FE model is actually plausible.  So far FE'ers have declined all opportunities to demonstrate the plausibility of their various models.  Sadly, I don't expect this to change.

Quote from: Thork on November 07, 2010, 10:31:50 AM

Ok, I had a bit of a joke, but if FE went to the trouble of making a model, it is that easy to rip into them. Its a lot of work to achieve very little.

On the contrary.  By having a model that can demonstrate various basic cosmological concepts, it would go a very long way to show that the FE model is actually plausible.  So far FE'ers have declined all opportunities to demonstrate the plausibility of their various models.  Sadly, I don't expect this to change.

If such a model were to be made to scale the sun and moon would have to be extremely small and close to the earth. On an earth the size of a dinner table the sun would be smaller than a pulpit seed, and within five inches from its surface.

Since it's impractical to make such a model, anything made would be criticized for being out of proportion.

Why don't we see any RET models of the sun and earth made to scale? Thork has criticized several models for being very unrealistic. According to you, since a small scale model needs to be built for any model to be valid, that mean that the Round Earth Theory is not plausible, right?

I personally made a scale model of the solar system as a school project. It spanned half the campus. 

Why don't we see any RET models of the sun and earth made to scale?

Because there is no need for the Sun to be in scale. It's a light source and the important thing is light itself, not the source of it. Your FE model won't also need the Sun at the scale only but the light must illuminate the correct area on the Earth. And that is all. Only thing you have to do for the FE model is draw the map to a flat plate and put the light source above it so that it illuminates the correct area. And the moon(and sub moon) which eclipse the Sun from time to time. If you can't do it then the Earth isn't flat or there is something very wrong with FE model.

Quote from: markjo on November 07, 2010, 11:52:22 AM

Quote from: Thork on November 07, 2010, 10:31:50 AM

Ok, I had a bit of a joke, but if FE went to the trouble of making a model, it is that easy to rip into them. Its a lot of work to achieve very little.

On the contrary.  By having a model that can demonstrate various basic cosmological concepts, it would go a very long way to show that the FE model is actually plausible.  So far FE'ers have declined all opportunities to demonstrate the plausibility of their various models.  Sadly, I don't expect this to change.

If such a model were to be made to scale the sun and moon would have to be extremely small and close to the earth. On an earth the size of a dinner table the sun would be smaller than a pulpit seed, and within five inches from its surface.

Since it's impractical to make such a model, anything made would be criticized for being out of proportion.

First of all, such a model does not need to be to scale to demonstrate the concepts.  Secondly, from what I can tell, the FE model would be much more reasonable than RE scale.

Why don't we see any RET models of the sun and earth made to scale? Thork has criticized several models for being very unrealistic. According to you, since a small scale model needs to be built for any model to be valid, that mean that the Round Earth Theory is not plausible, right?

Obviously you aren't looking hard enough.  Google is your friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_system_model#Scale_models_in_various_locations

I've personally been to the one in Ithaca, NY.

Quote from: zork on November 06, 2010, 03:31:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 06, 2010, 03:13:32 PM

It is absolutely absurd that RE'ers continue to cling onto gravity and and explain away its failings with invisible matter and undetectable energies. It is really just a failure of the RET model as a whole.

 Stick to the scales. RET model isn't the model of the entire universe. It's only model of the shape of the Earth and workings in the local scale. And isn't it totally absurd that the FE hasn't even worked out the working model yet? Which can explain how things work locally. Like seasons, day, night, sunset, sunrise and so on.

The seasons, day, night sunset, and sunrise have already been explained long ago. Please read Earth Not a Globe. Also see the Wiki for explanations.

And yes, the RET model is a model of the entire universe. Due to Astronomical Parallax on a spherical body the size of the universe is inferred.

On a Flat Earth the sun can be calculated with Astronomical Parallax to be a few thousand miles from the surface of the earth. On a Round Earth the sun can be calculated to be 95 million miles from the surface of the earth. Very fundamental properties of the heavens were inferred based on astronomical parallax and an assumption of the earth's shape. One assumption of the earth's shape tells us one thing about the size and extent of celestial bodies in the heavens, and another shape of the earth tells us another thing.

Most people are unaware that our perception of the universe is tied to the shape of the earth and the theories of gravitation. Nothing about the universe or celestial bodies have been measured directly in the Round Earth Model. Their properties are inferred based on Astronomical Parallax on a spherical surface and fundamental assumptions of gravity. The size and properties of the universe in Round Earth Model is a direct extension of the earth's shape.

Many people assume that we discovered that distance to the sun and other celestial bodies independently of the earth's shape, but it was not. With Astronomical Parallax the angle of the sun in the sky means one thing on a Round Earth and another thing on a Flat Earth. On each earth the distance to the sun is computed out to different values, which is how we can compute the sun's distance out to a few thousand miles on a Flat Earth. The shape of the earth affects the size and properties of the heavens.

I will look into creating a Wiki page in explaining this more thoroughly.

Modern science can rely on Astronomical Parallax because RET has been proven by space travel. Without the precious conspiracy FET has no way to claim parity with RET predictions of outer space and the galaxy at large. If you ignore direct observations of the Earths shape as evidence, than all we can do is argue about the interpretation of the same observations.

Not only are RE'ers unable to find the mechanism for gravity, but they are unable to use gravity in the universe to make celestial predictions or explain observations.

And do tell, by what mechanism does the UA operate? How about neutrinos?