Formation of Bodies disproves FET

If you are also going to play word games, at least be intellectually honest: Einstein was, in essence, right about one thing (Relativity) therefore he was necessarily right about another thing (the orbits of the planets) that is so closely related that one cannot understand one without the other.

When your two things are totally unrelated you are right not to extend the credibility of a person from one thing to another. But you are insulting Einstein when you reduce his work to just things.

trig, I'd like it if in future you stopped referring to logic as 'word games'. It's not, and doesn't even have to involve words.


Just because Einstein was right about SR, it does not follow that he was right about GR. My point is only trivial to the extent that I shouldn't have to make it; that I do reflects poorly on your argument, not mine.

Just because Einstein was right about SR, it does not follow that he was right about GR.

What part(s) of GR do you think that Einstein is or might wrong about?

Quote from: trig on May 31, 2012, 01:48:54 AM

If you are also going to play word games, at least be intellectually honest: Einstein was, in essence, right about one thing (Relativity) therefore he was necessarily right about another thing (the orbits of the planets) that is so closely related that one cannot understand one without the other.

When your two things are totally unrelated you are right not to extend the credibility of a person from one thing to another. But you are insulting Einstein when you reduce his work to just things.

trig, I'd like it if in future you stopped referring to logic as 'word games'. It's not, and doesn't even have to involve words.


Just because Einstein was right about SR, it does not follow that he was right about GR. My point is only trivial to the extent that I shouldn't have to make it; that I do reflects poorly on your argument, not mine.

No, you are the one who wants to pass silly word games as real logic.

I am not saying that Einstein was right about GR because he was right about SR. That is your word game, not mine.

I am saying that GR and SR are intricately related, and that being the foremost expert in one gives credence to his position on the other. That is not an absolute logical argument, so you still can amaze all of us with your knowledge of GR,SR or any other subject of Physics for that matter, and then your opinions on Physics will receive proper credibility. But wait... every time you pretend to talk about Physics you end up playing word games and trying to pass them as logical arguments. Does that make your knowledge of Physics any more credible?

And by the way, you need both GR and SR to predict the orbit of the planets, mainly of Mercury, to the accuracy that we have of it. Pretending that Einstein was good at GR and bad at SR does not explain that both of them have been verified through observations of the planets, among many other experiments and observations.

You are about 70 years obsolete in your knowledge of Relativity. In those times you could have said that Einstein was completely wrong about one or both theories, but not now.

No, you are the one who wants to pass silly word games as real logic.

I am not saying that Einstein was right about GR because he was right about SR. That is your word game, not mine.

I am saying that GR and SR are intricately related, and that being the foremost expert in one gives credence to his position on the other. That is not an absolute logical argument, so you still can amaze all of us with your knowledge of GR,SR or any other subject of Physics for that matter, and then your opinions on Physics will receive proper credibility. But wait... every time you pretend to talk about Physics you end up playing word games and trying to pass them as logical arguments. Does that make your knowledge of Physics any more credible?

And by the way, you need both GR and SR to predict the orbit of the planets, mainly of Mercury, to the accuracy that we have of it. Pretending that Einstein was good at GR and bad at SR does not explain that both of them have been verified through observations of the planets, among many other experiments and observations.

You are about 70 years obsolete in your knowledge of Relativity. In those times you could have said that Einstein was completely wrong about one or both theories, but not now.

trig, here is what you said:

There have been two main arguments around this. One of them is to attack the Michelson-Morely experiment, believing that this is enough to demolish Relativity like a house of cards, and the other is to believe Einstein was so intelligent that he discovered relativity but such and idiot that he calculated the effects of gravitational lensing and of Relativity on the planets' orbits without noticing that the Sun and planets as we know them do not exist.

This is a simple case of 'Einstein was clever enough to be right about A, therefore he could not have been wrong about B'. It's a terrible argument, and it was totally hypocritical of you to then accuse Tom of trying to discredit one theory by discrediting another.


You can no more validate one theory by validating another than you can discredit one theory by discrediting another. You can't just whinge about 'word games' when we point out that your arguments are hypocritical and lame. Stop complaining and make better arguments.

Quote from: trig on June 12, 2012, 08:46:17 AM

No, you are the one who wants to pass silly word games as real logic.

I am not saying that Einstein was right about GR because he was right about SR. That is your word game, not mine.

I am saying that GR and SR are intricately related, and that being the foremost expert in one gives credence to his position on the other. That is not an absolute logical argument, so you still can amaze all of us with your knowledge of GR,SR or any other subject of Physics for that matter, and then your opinions on Physics will receive proper credibility. But wait... every time you pretend to talk about Physics you end up playing word games and trying to pass them as logical arguments. Does that make your knowledge of Physics any more credible?

And by the way, you need both GR and SR to predict the orbit of the planets, mainly of Mercury, to the accuracy that we have of it. Pretending that Einstein was good at GR and bad at SR does not explain that both of them have been verified through observations of the planets, among many other experiments and observations.

You are about 70 years obsolete in your knowledge of Relativity. In those times you could have said that Einstein was completely wrong about one or both theories, but not now.

trig, here is what you said:

Quote from: trig on May 29, 2012, 08:53:52 AM

There have been two main arguments around this. One of them is to attack the Michelson-Morely experiment, believing that this is enough to demolish Relativity like a house of cards, and the other is to believe Einstein was so intelligent that he discovered relativity but such and idiot that he calculated the effects of gravitational lensing and of Relativity on the planets' orbits without noticing that the Sun and planets as we know them do not exist.

This is a simple case of 'Einstein was clever enough to be right about A, therefore he could not have been wrong about B'. It's a terrible argument, and it was totally hypocritical of you to then accuse Tom of trying to discredit one theory by discrediting another.


You can no more validate one theory by validating another than you can discredit one theory by discrediting another. You can't just whinge about 'word games' when we point out that your arguments are hypocritical and lame. Stop complaining and make better arguments.

You have made the textbook Strawman Fallacy. Even though you are told once, and again and again that the argument is much more than you want to read, you go back to your watered down version and try to attack it.

It is impossible to really understand either SR or GR without understanding the cosmos and vice versa. Both SR and GR are necessary to understand things like the orbits of the planets and gravitational lensing, and we don't have a better theory to understand them, either.

trig, your post is right there. I'm not watering down anything, I'm presenting what you said, i.e. the argument you actually made. I'm not saying better arguments don't exist, just that you made a rubbish one, and then jumped on Tom when he made the same point in reverse.

trig, your post is right there. I'm not watering down anything, I'm presenting what you said, i.e. the argument you actually made. I'm not saying better arguments don't exist, just that you made a rubbish one, and then jumped on Tom when he made the same point in reverse.

And it is clear to everyone who reads it, except you.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 20, 2012, 08:17:22 AM

trig, your post is right there. I'm not watering down anything, I'm presenting what you said, i.e. the argument you actually made. I'm not saying better arguments don't exist, just that you made a rubbish one, and then jumped on Tom when he made the same point in reverse.

And it is clear to everyone who reads it, except you.

Here is what you said:

the other is to believe Einstein was so intelligent that he discovered relativity but such and idiot that he calculated the effects of gravitational lensing and of Relativity on the planets' orbits without noticing that the Sun and planets as we know them do not exist.

That's all you posted. That's it. You made precisely the same point Tom subsequently did, only in reverse.


As for them being closely related, I'm not sure why the points Tom raised are any less related or relevant than the ones you raised. Whatever way you cut it, it was still a hypocritical point to level at Tom.


Finally, Einstein did not 'discover' relativity. It's not a thing out there in the universe. It's a theory, which he invented, and his being right about the basic concepts is in no way dependent on his calculations regarding the universe as we know it. The latter followed from the former, not the other way around, so this idea that he couldn't possibly have been right about one and wrong about the other is stupid.

Quote from: trig on June 20, 2012, 08:19:13 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 20, 2012, 08:17:22 AM

trig, your post is right there. I'm not watering down anything, I'm presenting what you said, i.e. the argument you actually made. I'm not saying better arguments don't exist, just that you made a rubbish one, and then jumped on Tom when he made the same point in reverse.

And it is clear to everyone who reads it, except you.

Here is what you said:

Quote from: trig on May 29, 2012, 08:53:52 AM

the other is to believe Einstein was so intelligent that he discovered relativity but such and idiot that he calculated the effects of gravitational lensing and of Relativity on the planets' orbits without noticing that the Sun and planets as we know them do not exist.

That's all you posted. That's it. You made precisely the same point Tom subsequently did, only in reverse.


As for them being closely related, I'm not sure why the points Tom raised are any less related or relevant than the ones you raised. Whatever way you cut it, it was still a hypocritical point to level at Tom.


Finally, Einstein did not 'discover' relativity. It's not a thing out there in the universe. It's a theory, which he invented, and his being right about the basic concepts is in no way dependent on his calculations regarding the universe as we know it. The latter followed from the former, not the other way around, so this idea that he couldn't possibly have been right about one and wrong about the other is stupid.

Again and again and again, you try to dissociate the theories of relativity from gravitational lensing and the orbits of planets. That is not new in FE "theories", where you want to claim some of Einstein's work as good for you, but the experiments and observations that either motivated or tested the theory as idiotic. The two are inseparable.

Bleating X doesn't make X true. Indeed, your statements betray your ignorance of the history of relativistic physics.

Quote from: Conker on June 10, 2012, 12:01:36 PM

Where do meteors come from?

You get them when a mummy and a daddy meteor, love each other very much.

low-content post alert, thork you are an unhinged though funny mofo

Bleating X doesn't make X true. Indeed, your statements betray your ignorance of the history of relativistic physics.

You mean the revisionist history made up by levee...

If Flat Earth Theory is correct, then how did Earth form? After all, such a large body would tend normally towards hydrostatic equilibrium, which would be a sphere. Additionally, if one flat planet formed, why aren't all stars, moons, and planets flat?

On another point, why, even on this forum, do some claim Earth to be a disk rushing rapidly upward, and claim space to be a mostly empty medium, like the early idea of the photoelectric ether, while others claim Earth to be surrounded by an undetectable dome in which all observable objects in 'space' are set?

1. The earth is not a planet.
2. A special kind of gravity exists in FE.

Not a flat earth believer, just a conscientious objector.

Quote from: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 21, 2012, 11:47:16 AM

If Flat Earth Theory is correct, then how did Earth form? After all, such a large body would tend normally towards hydrostatic equilibrium, which would be a sphere. Additionally, if one flat planet formed, why aren't all stars, moons, and planets flat?

On another point, why, even on this forum, do some claim Earth to be a disk rushing rapidly upward, and claim space to be a mostly empty medium, like the early idea of the photoelectric ether, while others claim Earth to be surrounded by an undetectable dome in which all observable objects in 'space' are set?

1. The earth is not a planet.
2. A special kind of gravity exists in FE.

Not a flat earth believer, just a conscientious objector.

1. Yet has to be demonstrated by FET.
2. Has to be demonstrated by you. Has to be demonstrated also: why UA affects only the Earth and not things on it and why gravity doesn't affect Earth.

Quote from: burt on July 13, 2012, 08:00:17 PM

Quote from: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 21, 2012, 11:47:16 AM

If Flat Earth Theory is correct, then how did Earth form? After all, such a large body would tend normally towards hydrostatic equilibrium, which would be a sphere. Additionally, if one flat planet formed, why aren't all stars, moons, and planets flat?

On another point, why, even on this forum, do some claim Earth to be a disk rushing rapidly upward, and claim space to be a mostly empty medium, like the early idea of the photoelectric ether, while others claim Earth to be surrounded by an undetectable dome in which all observable objects in 'space' are set?

1. The earth is not a planet.
2. A special kind of gravity exists in FE.

Not a flat earth believer, just a conscientious objector.

1. Yet has to be demonstrated by FET.
2. Has to be demonstrated by you. Has to be demonstrated also: why UA affects only the Earth and not things on it and why gravity doesn't affect Earth.

I don't have to demonstrate anything; I don't believe either of the above things.

Open a bible and you'll get a truly logical and scientific answer, not some theoretical hogwash.

Allow me to don my flat earth hat for a minute. You see time as something that moves forward. You believe there is a past and a future. But I tell you that time is merely an illusion created in the mind's of man. The Earth always has been and always will be. Do not let the illusion of time cloud your judgment. What is infinite needs no beginning.

Hot diggity, wouldn't I make a good flat earther?