What's on the other side?

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 09:40:22 AM

It is the description of what would happen if the earth was accelerating at 9.81m/s. It says that if this was the case, we would see the red shift of light and have a horizon form.

Sure, if the Earth were transparent and we could see what was underneath it.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 09:40:22 AM

It also states that we would notice a change in the effects of time the closer you are to the engine (other side of the earth). Therefore you would age quicker at a high altitude than at sea level. This does not occur as the last time I checked people didn't age years in months by living at 40,000ft.

You are claiming that there is no time dilation with altitude. This is incompatible with RET. What model of the Earth are you using?

Earth time dilation due to altitude takes into account the rotation of the Earth, something FET denies, which is something GPS has to take into account.
As for 40,000ft, all your pseudo-satellite pilots must live at that height  It was a hyperbole, so let's not be pedantic.

Earth time dilation due to altitude takes into account the rotation of the Earth, something FET denies, which is something GPS has to take into account.

Irrelevant. You claimed the effect was not present, which is incompatible with RET. What model of the Earth are you using?

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 09:55:12 AM

Earth time dilation due to altitude takes into account the rotation of the Earth, something FET denies, which is something GPS has to take into account.

Irrelevant. You claimed the effect was not present, which is incompatible with RET. What model of the Earth are you using?

I should have clarified. The ageing effect on a round, rotating earth is different to that of a flat accelerating earth. This time dilation is taken into account with GPS, which even you FETards do believe exists in one form or another. How can you explain this?
Also now I think about it, how can you guys explain the Coriolis effect within the atmosphere?
And how come we can't see what is accelerating the sun?

I should have clarified. The ageing effect on a round, rotating earth is different to that of a flat accelerating earth. This time dilation is taken into account with GPS, which even you FETards do believe exists in one form or another. How can you explain this?

GPS is not an open system; its workings are controlled by the U.S. military. The only reason you have to believe that the time dilation effect is taken into account is because they tell you it is.

Also now I think about it, how can you guys explain the Coriolis effect within the atmosphere?

Gravitation of the stars.

And how come we can't see what is accelerating the sun?

The same reason we can't see what accelerates a magnet to a current-carrying coil of wire.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 10:08:39 AM

I should have clarified. The ageing effect on a round, rotating earth is different to that of a flat accelerating earth. This time dilation is taken into account with GPS, which even you FETards do believe exists in one form or another. How can you explain this?

GPS is not an open system; its workings are controlled by the U.S. military. The only reason you have to believe that the time dilation effect is taken into account is because they tell you it is.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 10:08:39 AM

Also now I think about it, how can you guys explain the Coriolis effect within the atmosphere?

Gravitation of the stars.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 10:08:39 AM

And how come we can't see what is accelerating the sun?

The same reason we can't see what accelerates a magnet to a current-carrying coil of wire.

Wow wrong, wrong and wrong.
Try GNSS, not just GPS. Suddenly your military conspiracy is screwed.
Gravitation of the stars...Where is your evidence? Surely if the earth is moving, the Coriolis effect would alter. The fact it doesn't shows your idea to be wrong.
Your reasoning for not seeing what accelerates the sun is simply spacious reasoning. There is physical evidence for magnetic fields. There is no evidence for anything accelerating the sun.

Try GNSS, not just GPS. Suddenly your military conspiracy is screwed.

There are few enough organisations with the money to attempt something like this that they could have been bribed by the Conspiracy.

Gravitation of the stars...Where is your evidence? Surely if the earth is moving, the Coriolis effect would alter. The fact it doesn't shows your idea to be wrong.

The stars are moving with the Earth. Please read the FAQ.

Your reasoning for not seeing what accelerates the sun is simply spacious reasoning. There is physical evidence for magnetic fields. There is no evidence for anything accelerating the sun.

Except the fact that we don't crash into it.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 10:27:22 AM

Try GNSS, not just GPS. Suddenly your military conspiracy is screwed.

There are few enough organisations with the money to attempt something like this that they could have been bribed by the Conspiracy.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 10:27:22 AM

Gravitation of the stars...Where is your evidence? Surely if the earth is moving, the Coriolis effect would alter. The fact it doesn't shows your idea to be wrong.

The stars are moving with the Earth. Please read the FAQ.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 10:27:22 AM

Your reasoning for not seeing what accelerates the sun is simply spacious reasoning. There is physical evidence for magnetic fields. There is no evidence for anything accelerating the sun.

Except the fact that we don't crash into it.

The conspiracy...which you have no evidence for.
You say the stars are moving...but have no evidence for that either.
And saying we don't crash into the sun isn't evidence for the sun moving...

Spacious reasoning at it's best here.
Oh and if light bent, EDM wouldn't work. Another problem for y'all.

The conspiracy...which you have no evidence for.

If there was evidence for it, it wouldn't be a very good conspiracy.

You say the stars are moving...but have no evidence for that either.

Sure I do:

And saying we don't crash into the sun isn't evidence for the sun moving...

If the Earth is accelerating towards the Sun, and we don't crash into the Sun, then it follows logically that the Sun must be accelerating too.

Oh and if light bent, EDM wouldn't work. Another problem for y'all.

Electronic dance music? European Domestic Market? Enterprise Data Management? Be more specific.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 10:43:18 AM

The conspiracy...which you have no evidence for.

If there was evidence for it, it wouldn't be a very good conspiracy.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 10:43:18 AM

You say the stars are moving...but have no evidence for that either.

Sure I do:

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 10:43:18 AM

And saying we don't crash into the sun isn't evidence for the sun moving...

If the Earth is accelerating towards the Sun, and we don't crash into the Sun, then it follows logically that the Sun must be accelerating too.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 10:43:18 AM

Oh and if light bent, EDM wouldn't work. Another problem for y'all.

Electronic dance music? European Domestic Market? Enterprise Data Management? Be more specific.

So you claim something exists with no evidence for it. Well with that sort of ground breaking logic I think anyone could claim anything. No evidence means it is not something you can use as reasoning for anything as it is only a hypothesis.
Firstly, irony. I could just say that photo is faked. Plus, that does not show the stars moving northwards which they would need to to maintain the coriolis effect and ocean currents if the Earth was acceleration northwards.
I could say because the sun doesn't crash into the earth, there is an invisible octopus holding it away from the earth. Again, purely spacious reasoning. If you have no evidence for earth acceleration, you have no reason to then logically say the sun is then also moving.
EDM = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_station. You can use a tape measure to back up their readings. How would that work if light bent?

So you claim something exists with no evidence for it. Well with that sort of ground breaking logic I think anyone could claim anything. No evidence means it is not something you can use as reasoning for anything as it is only a hypothesis.

What did I claim existed without evidence?

Firstly, irony. I could just say that photo is faked. Plus, that does not show the stars moving northwards which they would need to to maintain the coriolis effect and ocean currents if the Earth was acceleration northwards.

The Earth does not accelerate northwards.

I could say because the sun doesn't crash into the earth, there is an invisible octopus holding it away from the earth. Again, purely spacious reasoning. If you have no evidence for earth acceleration, you have no reason to then logically say the sun is then also moving.

An invisible octopus would be a source of acceleration on the Sun, thereby proving my hypothesis true. However, I would consider that it is one of the more implausible possibilities regarding the nature of this acceleration. Also, it's quite obvious that the Earth is accelerating - if you don't believe me, simply step off the roof of a tall building. The Earth will pick up quite a lot of momentum by the time it reaches you; you should be able to detect it without too much trouble.

EDM = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_station. You can use a tape measure to back up their readings. How would that work if light bent?

By a light ray travelling from one of those devices to another, just as it would if light moved in a straight line.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 11:03:42 AM

So you claim something exists with no evidence for it. Well with that sort of ground breaking logic I think anyone could claim anything. No evidence means it is not something you can use as reasoning for anything as it is only a hypothesis.

What did I claim existed without evidence?

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 11:03:42 AM

Firstly, irony. I could just say that photo is faked. Plus, that does not show the stars moving northwards which they would need to to maintain the coriolis effect and ocean currents if the Earth was acceleration northwards.

The Earth does not accelerate northwards.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 11:03:42 AM

I could say because the sun doesn't crash into the earth, there is an invisible octopus holding it away from the earth. Again, purely spacious reasoning. If you have no evidence for earth acceleration, you have no reason to then logically say the sun is then also moving.

An invisible octopus would be a source of acceleration on the Sun, thereby proving my hypothesis true. However, I would consider that it is one of the more implausible possibilities regarding the nature of this acceleration. Also, it's quite obvious that the Earth is accelerating - if you don't believe me, simply step off the roof of a tall building. The Earth will pick up quite a lot of momentum by the time it reaches you; you should be able to detect it without too much trouble.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 11:03:42 AM

EDM = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_station. You can use a tape measure to back up their readings. How would that work if light bent?

By a light ray travelling from one of those devices to another, just as it would if light moved in a straight line.

The conspiracy you have no evidence for.
So which direction does the earth accelerate?? Either way it is going to have to travel in the same direction as the stars, which you have no evidence for either.
No, your hypothesis is only true when you find the octopus. Likewise until you can prove that the earth is accelerating, you cannot base hypothesis' on hypotheis. That's  bad science and proving nothing.
So how come light doesn't bend when travelling from one EDM to another yet it does from the sun?

The conspiracy you have no evidence for.

I don't recall claiming a conspiracy existed. If you could point out where I did so, that would be helpful.

So which direction does the earth accelerate?? Either way it is going to have to travel in the same direction as the stars, which you have no evidence for either.

It accelerates upward.

No, your hypothesis is only true when you find the octopus. Likewise until you can prove that the earth is accelerating, you cannot base hypothesis' on hypotheis. That's  bad science and proving nothing.

I already pointed out how it can be shown that the Earth is accelerating in my previous post, which you've chosen to ignore.

So how come light doesn't bend when travelling from one EDM to another yet it does from the sun?

It does bend between EDMs.

Matzy, at this point there really isn't anything more to say other than that you are wrong. The post I linked you to wasn't made by a FE'er, but a senior RE'er at this site. You don't know what you're talking about, and it's painfully obvious.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 11:17:58 AM

The conspiracy you have no evidence for.

I don't recall claiming a conspiracy existed. If you could point out where I did so, that would be helpful.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 11:17:58 AM

So which direction does the earth accelerate?? Either way it is going to have to travel in the same direction as the stars, which you have no evidence for either.

It accelerates upward.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 11:17:58 AM

No, your hypothesis is only true when you find the octopus. Likewise until you can prove that the earth is accelerating, you cannot base hypothesis' on hypotheis. That's  bad science and proving nothing.

I already pointed out how it can be shown that the Earth is accelerating in my previous post, which you've chosen to ignore.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 11:17:58 AM

So how come light doesn't bend when travelling from one EDM to another yet it does from the sun?

It does bend between EDMs.

"There are few enough organisations with the money to attempt something like this that they could have been bribed by the Conspiracy."
Get a memory.
No, you claim it accelerates upwards. Where is your evidence? Your hypothesis is the earth is accelerating upwards as gravity and acceleration can be indistinguishable. Note the last word - indistinguishable. This does not mean that suddenly the earth is accelerating upwards.
If light bends between EDM's, how come the distance read-out, which works by calculating the sent and received signal, shows the same distance between machine and target if you were to use a tape measure? If light bent, the distance calculated by EDM's would be greater than the real-life distance.

Matzy, at this point there really isn't anything more to say other than that you are wrong. The post I linked you to wasn't made by a FE'er, but a senior RE'er at this site. You don't know what you're talking about, and it's painfully obvious.

Proof PLX

"There are few enough organisations with the money to attempt something like this that they could have been bribed by the Conspiracy."

"Could have been" does not mean the same thing as "were".

No, you claim it accelerates upwards. Where is your evidence? Your hypothesis is the earth is accelerating upwards as gravity and acceleration can be indistinguishable. Note the last word - indistinguishable. This does not mean that suddenly the earth is accelerating upwards.

They are not just indistinguishable, they are the same thing. The Earth's surface is accelerating upwards in RET, too.

If light bends between EDM's, how come the distance read-out, which works by calculating the sent and received signal, shows the same distance between machine and target if you were to use a tape measure? If light bent, the distance calculated by EDM's would be greater than the real-life distance.

Because the difference created by the subtle bending of light over such short distances is far smaller than experimental uncertainty.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 11:32:28 AM

"There are few enough organisations with the money to attempt something like this that they could have been bribed by the Conspiracy."

"Could have been" does not mean the same thing as "were".

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 11:32:28 AM

No, you claim it accelerates upwards. Where is your evidence? Your hypothesis is the earth is accelerating upwards as gravity and acceleration can be indistinguishable. Note the last word - indistinguishable. This does not mean that suddenly the earth is accelerating upwards.

They are not just indistinguishable, they are the same thing. The Earth's surface is accelerating upwards in RET, too.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 11:32:28 AM

If light bends between EDM's, how come the distance read-out, which works by calculating the sent and received signal, shows the same distance between machine and target if you were to use a tape measure? If light bent, the distance calculated by EDM's would be greater than the real-life distance.

Because the difference created by the subtle bending of light over such short distances is far smaller than experimental uncertainty.

So then back to the question of explain GNSS.
Same thing =/= therefore the earth is travelling towards the sun.
Where is your proof for light bending?
And considering the accuracy of total stations, they would pick up any distortion, especially over large distances.

So then back to the question of explain GNSS.

What's to explain? There are computers in the sky which send signals down to devices which calculate one's position.

Same thing =/= therefore the earth is travelling towards the sun.

The Earth accelerating up at 9.8 m s^-2 is equivalent to the Earth being stationary in a uniform downwards gravitational field at 9.8 m s^-2. In the first case, we are moving towards the Sun; in the second, the Sun should be falling towards us. In either case, an upward force on the Sun is necessary to prevent it colliding with the Earth.

Where is your proof for light bending?
And considering the accuracy of total stations, they would pick up any distortion, especially over large distances.

There are many bendy light threads already; please post in one of them instead of continuing to derail this one.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 11:47:45 AM

So then back to the question of explain GNSS.

What's to explain? There are computers in the sky which send signals down to devices which calculate one's position.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 11:47:45 AM

Same thing =/= therefore the earth is travelling towards the sun.

The Earth accelerating up at 9.8 m s^-2 is equivalent to the Earth being stationary in a uniform downwards gravitational field at 9.8 m s^-2. In the first case, we are moving towards the Sun; in the second, the Sun should be falling towards us. In either case, an upward force on the Sun is necessary to prevent it colliding with the Earth.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 11:47:45 AM

Where is your proof for light bending?
And considering the accuracy of total stations, they would pick up any distortion, especially over large distances.

There are many bendy light threads already; please post in one of them instead of continuing to derail this one.

Computers in the sky. You mean satellites. How do they then work as FET says there are no satellites.
No, you simply do not understand orbits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit
They are not theories for bendy light, they are overblown hypothesis which never get off the ground.

Computers in the sky. You mean satellites. How do they then work as FET says there are no satellites.

No, I mean computers in the sky. According to FET, they are pseudolites.

No, you simply do not understand orbits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit

Orbit about a flat Earth is not possible.

They are not theories for bendy light, they are overblown hypothesis which never get off the ground.

I said "threads", not "theories". Do you need help with reading comprehension? http://www.rif.org/

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 11:59:13 AM

Computers in the sky. You mean satellites. How do they then work as FET says there are no satellites.

No, I mean computers in the sky. According to FET, they are pseudolites.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 11:59:13 AM

No, you simply do not understand orbits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit

Orbit about a flat Earth is not possible.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 11:59:13 AM

They are not theories for bendy light, they are overblown hypothesis which never get off the ground.

I said "threads", not "theories". Do you need help with reading comprehension? http://www.rif.org/

Prove they are pseudolites.
Saying it has to be accelerating towards the sun because you claim the is flat does not mean it is flat. Considering that the only reason you can come up with for saying the earth is not round is a giant conspiracy, which you have no evidence for, that's hardly good reasoning.
All the threads are the same shit which never prove anything about light bending.
End of the say all you have is speculation and no science. Reply back when you can prove the earth is indeed flat and not simply speculate.

Prove they are pseudolites.

Why don't you prove they are satellites? You're the one who made the claim, not me.

Saying it has to be accelerating towards the sun because you claim the is flat does not mean it is flat. Considering that the only reason you can come up with for saying the earth is not round is a giant conspiracy, which you have no evidence for, that's hardly good reasoning.

This thread is for discussion regarding FET. If you do not wish to discuss FET, simply stop posting here.

All the threads are the same shit which never prove anything about light bending.

I haven't seen any proof that it travels in straight lines.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 12:15:00 PM

Prove they are pseudolites.

Why don't you prove they are satellites? You're the one who made the claim, not me.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 12:15:00 PM

Saying it has to be accelerating towards the sun because you claim the is flat does not mean it is flat. Considering that the only reason you can come up with for saying the earth is not round is a giant conspiracy, which you have no evidence for, that's hardly good reasoning.

This thread is for discussion regarding FET. If you do not wish to discuss FET, simply stop posting here.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 12:15:00 PM

All the threads are the same shit which never prove anything about light bending.

I haven't seen any proof that it travels in straight lines.

There are satellites because I have used them and seen the science behind them, as well as they have the LoS of satellites. Pseudolites would require a fleet of planes which have never been spotted up 24/7.
I'm discussing FET and pointing out you have no solid evidence to question RET.
No proof light travels in a straight line? Use total stations. And fibre optics. And this experiment a monkey could set up:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Describe_an_experiment_that_show%27s_how_light_travels_in_a_straight_line

There are satellites because I have used them and seen the science behind them, as well as they have the LoS of satellites. Pseudolites would require a fleet of planes which have never been spotted up 24/7.

Would you please stop using abbreviations without first defining them? Also, would you mind providing something more substantial than anecdotal evidence to support your point? How exactly have you used them, and for what purpose? Also, pseudolites need not be aeroplanes.

I'm discussing FET and pointing out you have no solid evidence to question RET.

I don't need to prove a negative. Why don't you provide some evidence for RET?

No proof light travels in a straight line? Use total stations. And fibre optics. And this experiment a monkey could set up:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Describe_an_experiment_that_show%27s_how_light_travels_in_a_straight_line

What is the uncertainty present in that experiment?

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 12:34:21 PM

There are satellites because I have used them and seen the science behind them, as well as they have the LoS of satellites. Pseudolites would require a fleet of planes which have never been spotted up 24/7.

Would you please stop using abbreviations without first defining them? Also, would you mind providing something more substantial than anecdotal evidence to support your point? How exactly have you used them, and for what purpose? Also, pseudolites need not be aeroplanes.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 12:34:21 PM

I'm discussing FET and pointing out you have no solid evidence to question RET.

I don't need to prove a negative. Why don't you provide some evidence for RET?

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 12:34:21 PM

No proof light travels in a straight line? Use total stations. And fibre optics. And this experiment a monkey could set up:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Describe_an_experiment_that_show%27s_how_light_travels_in_a_straight_line

What is the uncertainty present in that experiment?

Where would these psuedolites come from? How are they fuelled? Why have they never been spotted etc. LoS= Line of sight.
I've used satellite imagery for monitoring vegetation coverage, and used GPS for simple and mm precise readings in valleys.
Evidence for a round earth - the existence of satellites, plate tectonics and geodetics. Evidence, not theories.
What is the uncertainty? None. If light didn't travel in a straight line, it wouldn't work. It's called simple logic. And how would you suggest fibre optics work of light bends?
Actually scratch all that, give me the science behind light bending.

Actually scratch all that, give me the science behind light bending.

"It has to for FE to make sense"

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 12:55:23 PM

Actually scratch all that, give me the science behind light bending.

"It has to for FE to make sense"

So what bends photons? Or is it EM radiation? What is the nature of light? What is the nature of bendy light?

Quote from: flyingmonkey on February 15, 2010, 01:55:34 PM

Quote from: mazty88 on February 15, 2010, 12:55:23 PM

Actually scratch all that, give me the science behind light bending.

"It has to for FE to make sense"

So what bends photons? Or is it EM radiation? What is the nature of light? What is the nature of bendy light?

Bendy light is just light that bends because of the variation of density as you gain altitude in the earth's atmosphere.

See the bendy light topics for more.