Give your top ten proofs for a globe.

Quote from: TheGreatGray on December 21, 2015, 02:37:06 PM

1) During a lunar eclipse, the Earth's shadow is always a circle. If the Earth were a sphere, the shadow would more often be an oval, and sometimes even a line. Similarly would occur with moon phases.
2) The sun does not produce a circular light that graduates from light to dark, it creates two distinct halves, one in day, one in night.
3) Planes take the most direct path possible. Planes that go from South America to Australia do not pass over the United States; they stay withing the Southern Hemisphere
4) The Earth experiences seasons
5) The Earth is magnetic (the north and south magnetic poles are not perfectly opposite by the way)
6) It is possible to get GPS signal over the Ocean or in a canyon, but not in a tunnel open on both ends.
7) The Earth experiences plate tectonics
You can see a farther distance at the top of Mount Everest at the ground than you can looking straight from sea level, despite that this requires your line of sight to pass through more atmosphere.
9) Earth gets hotter as we get deeper, because there is more pressure, because it is a sphere
10) It is not my fault that you don't have the resources to go to Antarctica, the Ocean, space, or find any picture that would prove that the Earth is round in a second.

For completeness

• Exactly what would be expected under the DE model, not the Earth's shadow
• Exactly what would be expected under the DE model, due to the mecahnism governing the Sun
• Exactly what would be expected under the DE model, trivially
• Exactly what would be expected under the DE model, trivially
• Exactly what would be expected under the DE model, trivially
• Exactly what would be expected under the DE model and even classical FE, due to how stratellites work
• Exactly what would be expected under the DE model, trivially
• Exactly what would be expected under the DE model and even classical FE due to air density
• Exactly what would be expected under the DE model, trivially
• Not proof of anything

Quote

That something happens to prove the existance of gravity and that your whole conspiracy isnt true because you can actually see a satalliete. Was it you that said that a picture of the ISS from earth looked like a bug on the lens? YOU CAN TRACK THE SATELLITE, AND YOU CAN SEE IT. IT'S NOT OUR FAULT YOU REFUSE TO.

Nope, wasn't me. I typically stay out of discussions for which the DE answer is no different to the FE.
An object in the sky does not mean an object in space.

The international space station cannot "fly in the sky" it has no wings, it is less bouyant than air, it does not have enough propulsion to fly... Don't try to tell me you think it's a blimp.
It can however, orbit in a vacuum with inertial speed to prevent it from falling.

It can however, orbit in a vacuum with inertial speed to prevent it from falling.

Tiny little nitpicking detail. The ISS doesn't actually orbit in total vacuum. It is still technically inside the atmosphere and experiences slight atmospheric drag, so it needs to be boosted occasionally to maintain altitude.

Quote from: TheGreatGray on December 21, 2015, 03:02:56 PM

It can however, orbit in a vacuum with inertial speed to prevent it from falling.

Tiny little nitpicking detail. The ISS doesn't actually orbit in total vacuum. It is still technically inside the atmosphere and experiences slight atmospheric drag, so it needs to be boosted occasionally to maintain altitude.

I thought about that as I was typing it. Thank you for the criticism for accuracy.  It will prevent them from twisting the words and derailing the thread.

Quote from: Poko on December 21, 2015, 03:10:01 PM

Quote from: TheGreatGray on December 21, 2015, 03:02:56 PM

It can however, orbit in a vacuum with inertial speed to prevent it from falling.

Tiny little nitpicking detail. The ISS doesn't actually orbit in total vacuum. It is still technically inside the atmosphere and experiences slight atmospheric drag, so it needs to be boosted occasionally to maintain altitude.

I thought about that as I was typing it. Thank you for the criticism for accuracy.  It will prevent them from twisting the words and derailing the thread.

We need to keep each other on our toes. After all, we are the ones will actual science backing up what we say.

Right, but what would that something be? What would be keeping it in the sky? Why has no FE astronomer done any research at all into what this object might be?
The international space station cannot "fly in the sky" it has no wings, it is less bouyant than air, it does not have enough propulsion to fly... Don't try to tell me you think it's a blimp.
It can however, orbit in a vacuum with inertial speed to prevent it from falling.

Because we have our priorities straight, and an object in the sky doesn't trump every other aspect of FET. It is notoriously difficult to actually pinpoint the ISS with a telescope; it's small, fast, and a telescope powerful enough to see it in any detail will be staring at a tiny patch of sky, with no landmarks beyond the darkness to guide you to the path of the ISS.
Claims that the ISS is less buoyant or doesn't have the propulsion to fly seem reliant on assuming you're just taking the RE blueprints of a space station and dropping them in the sky. It's hardly surprising that won't work. There are all manner of obects that can fly, I have no desire to list them all: if you are claiming it is evidence of RET, and so not reconcilable with an FE model, you're the ones who actually need to justify that claim. I simply need possibility, and the existence of flying machines seems all I need.

I thought about that as I was typing it. Thank you for the criticism for accuracy.  It will prevent them from twisting the words and derailing the thread.

That's jroa's purveiw. He's a RE troll, check his early posts.

Why is studying the ISS not your top priority? By studying its motion you could learn a lot about how objects high in the sky move. It might turn out to be some sort of alien craft capable of defying all known laws of physics. You guys should be out there in the field right now studying it, whether you believe in FE, DET, or whatever.

Why is studying the ISS not your top priority? By studying its motion you could learn a lot about how objects high in the sky move. It might turn out to be some sort of alien craft capable of defying all known laws of physics. You guys should be out there in the field right now studying it, whether you believe in FE, DET, or whatever.

Be serious.

Quote from: Poko on December 21, 2015, 03:23:26 PM

Why is studying the ISS not your top priority? By studying its motion you could learn a lot about how objects high in the sky move. It might turn out to be some sort of alien craft capable of defying all known laws of physics. You guys should be out there in the field right now studying it, whether you believe in FE, DET, or whatever.

Be serious.

I am serious. There is some unidentified object flying high in the sky with a predictable pattern and you don't care about how that works in your theory? If some UFO entered Earth's atmosphere and started flying by some unknown mechanism, you can bet your ass that scientists from all over the world would be on that immediately.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 03:24:08 PM

Quote from: Poko on December 21, 2015, 03:23:26 PM

Why is studying the ISS not your top priority? By studying its motion you could learn a lot about how objects high in the sky move. It might turn out to be some sort of alien craft capable of defying all known laws of physics. You guys should be out there in the field right now studying it, whether you believe in FE, DET, or whatever.

Be serious.

I am serious. There is some unidentified object flying high in the sky with a predictable pattern and you don't care about how that works in your theory? If some UFO entered Earth's atmosphere and started flying by some unknown mechanism, you can bet your ass that scientists from all over the world would be on that immediately.

What exactly makes you think it's not human-built?

Quote from: Poko on December 21, 2015, 03:42:06 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 03:24:08 PM

Quote from: Poko on December 21, 2015, 03:23:26 PM

Why is studying the ISS not your top priority? By studying its motion you could learn a lot about how objects high in the sky move. It might turn out to be some sort of alien craft capable of defying all known laws of physics. You guys should be out there in the field right now studying it, whether you believe in FE, DET, or whatever.

Be serious.

I am serious. There is some unidentified object flying high in the sky with a predictable pattern and you don't care about how that works in your theory? If some UFO entered Earth's atmosphere and started flying by some unknown mechanism, you can bet your ass that scientists from all over the world would be on that immediately.

What exactly makes you think it's not human-built?

Even if it is human-built, studying the ISS would still be a huge step in developing your Dual-Earth theory. Don't you want to see how the ISS and other satellites fit in with all the other objects in the sky?

Quote

Right, but what would that something be? What would be keeping it in the sky? Why has no FE astronomer done any research at all into what this object might be?
The international space station cannot "fly in the sky" it has no wings, it is less bouyant than air, it does not have enough propulsion to fly... Don't try to tell me you think it's a blimp.
It can however, orbit in a vacuum with inertial speed to prevent it from falling.

Because we have our priorities straight, and an object in the sky doesn't trump every other aspect of FET. It is notoriously difficult to actually pinpoint the ISS with a telescope; it's small, fast, and a telescope powerful enough to see it in any detail will be staring at a tiny patch of sky, with no landmarks beyond the darkness to guide you to the path of the ISS.
Claims that the ISS is less buoyant or doesn't have the propulsion to fly seem reliant on assuming you're just taking the RE blueprints of a space station and dropping them in the sky. It's hardly surprising that won't work. There are all manner of obects that can fly, I have no desire to list them all: if you are claiming it is evidence of RET, and so not reconcilable with an FE model, you're the ones who actually need to justify that claim. I simply need possibility, and the existence of flying machines seems all I need.

Quote

I thought about that as I was typing it. Thank you for the criticism for accuracy.  It will prevent them from twisting the words and derailing the thread.

That's jroa's purveiw. He's a RE troll, check his early posts.

It is indeed difficult to sight with a telescope, but you don't need a scope to see it.

It makes about 15 passes a day, so yeah, it's moving "fast"

The ISS has roughly the same magnitude as planet Venus, Venus being the third brightest thing in the night sky.

I have tracked it with a manual 8" C8 at low mag with a wide FOV eyepiece. (x40 mag)

With binoculars it's much more easily observed.

If you're interested in seeing it for yourself, go online and check the next visible pass for your state.

Even if it is human-built, studying the ISS would still be a huge step in developing your Dual-Earth theory. Don't you want to see how the ISS and other satellites fit in with all the other objects in the sky?

Why would there be any connection whatsoever?
And it remains minor compared to multiple other aspects.

It is indeed difficult to sight with a telescope, but you don't need a scope to see it.

I meant in detail. the naked eye shows little more than a spot of light. Even so, none of what you said is particularly important. What matters is whether or not it's in space.

Quote

Even if it is human-built, studying the ISS would still be a huge step in developing your Dual-Earth theory. Don't you want to see how the ISS and other satellites fit in with all the other objects in the sky?

Why would there be any connection whatsoever?
And it remains minor compared to multiple other aspects.

Quote

It is indeed difficult to sight with a telescope, but you don't need a scope to see it.

I meant in detail. the naked eye shows little more than a spot of light. Even so, none of what you said is particularly important. What matters is whether or not it's in space.

Watch the live onboard feed at the same time you view it overhead, just the first step of many to gather evidence to assist in your DET.

Watch the live onboard feed at the same time you view it overhead, just the first step of many to gather evidence to assist in your DET.

Nothing more than a waste of time. This thread is about proofs for a globe. Can you provide any such observation which would be actual evidence for a globe?
I am not going to obsess over trivialities.

Quote from: Andromeda Galaxy on December 21, 2015, 04:21:08 PM

Watch the live onboard feed at the same time you view it overhead, just the first step of many to gather evidence to assist in your DET.

Nothing more than a waste of time. This thread is about proofs for a globe. Can you provide any such observation which would be actual evidence for a globe?
I am not going to obsess over trivialities.

Well, I was actually trying to help you....

You make wild assumptions and your assumptions aren't fact unless you back them up dude.

Answer me this, have you ever observed the ISS yourself, and did you notice anything that separates it from let's say a commercial airliner?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 04:22:55 PM

Quote from: Andromeda Galaxy on December 21, 2015, 04:21:08 PM

Watch the live onboard feed at the same time you view it overhead, just the first step of many to gather evidence to assist in your DET.

Nothing more than a waste of time. This thread is about proofs for a globe. Can you provide any such observation which would be actual evidence for a globe?
I am not going to obsess over trivialities.

Well, I was actually trying to help you....

You make wild assumptions and your assumptions aren't fact unless you back them up dude.

Answer me this, have you ever observed the ISS yourself, and did you notice anything that separates it from let's say a commercial airliner?

You're not helping. Again, I am not going to obsess over trivialities. Though I may not be able to supply specific blueprints or personnel manifest, I am content with the DE and FE explanation for the ISS. The fact it is not in space is a conclusion of the DE model, not an assumption.
I see no reason to compare it to a commercial airliner, it is clearly not one. What is your point?

Given the topic of the thread, you should be able to provide proof that the ISS is indeed in space. if not, your points are as much an assumption as you claim mine are; we merely work from the conclusions inherent from our respective models.

Quote from: Andromeda Galaxy on December 21, 2015, 04:30:16 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 21, 2015, 04:22:55 PM

Quote from: Andromeda Galaxy on December 21, 2015, 04:21:08 PM

Watch the live onboard feed at the same time you view it overhead, just the first step of many to gather evidence to assist in your DET.

Nothing more than a waste of time. This thread is about proofs for a globe. Can you provide any such observation which would be actual evidence for a globe?
I am not going to obsess over trivialities.

Well, I was actually trying to help you....

You make wild assumptions and your assumptions aren't fact unless you back them up dude.

Answer me this, have you ever observed the ISS yourself, and did you notice anything that separates it from let's say a commercial airliner?

You're not helping. Again, I am not going to obsess over trivialities. Though I may not be able to supply specific blueprints or personnel manifest, I am content with the DE and FE explanation for the ISS. The fact it is not in space is a conclusion of the DE model, not an assumption.
I see no reason to compare it to a commercial airliner, it is clearly not one. What is your point?

Given the topic of the thread, you should be able to provide proof that the ISS is indeed in space. if not, your points are as much an assumption as you claim mine are; we merely work from the conclusions inherent from our respective models.

How about show us some proof the ISS is not in space? Other then saying a picture is fake or it is an airplane, which would just be assertion.

I'm going to stop feeding the troll. Come back when you can justify a single claim you make.

And let's add 'can pay the slightest attention to the thread,' to that list.

I'm getting better. Usually takes you longer to run out of an argument.

Stop. Wasting. Time.
Address what has been said or go away. No one wants your whining and derailments.

Stop. Wasting. Time.
Address what has been said or go away. No one wants your whining and derailments.

Can you address what has been said outside of DEF since that is not an accepted model? If not you can leave.

Can you address what has been said outside of DEF since that is not an accepted model? If not you can leave.

FET isn't an 'accepted model,' you don't get to ignore a working model just because you're too lazy to learn it.

Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 21, 2015, 05:37:16 PM

Can you address what has been said outside of DEF since that is not an accepted model? If not you can leave.

FET isn't an 'accepted model,' you don't get to ignore a working model just because you're too lazy to learn it.

Apparently TFES ignores it.

Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 21, 2015, 05:37:16 PM

Can you address what has been said outside of DEF since that is not an accepted model? If not you can leave.

FET isn't an 'accepted model,' you don't get to ignore a working model just because you're too lazy to learn it.

No you can ignore an argument that has been demonstrated to be false several times over, like DET or FET.  Since I have not been around much, I am sure no one has questioned your proof of what aether is lately.  I would like to know what you think it is again.  Include the part about aether "talking" to you also, sorry, the part about it imparting information about it's existence directly to you.  Also include your assumptions of aether being everything, or rather all matter and energy is a form of aether.  I could go quoting previous posts of yours.  You never would explain before. 
I digress, this is not the thread for debunking DET.  My apologies for contributing to the derailment.
 

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 03:02:30 AM

Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 21, 2015, 05:37:16 PM

Can you address what has been said outside of DEF since that is not an accepted model? If not you can leave.

FET isn't an 'accepted model,' you don't get to ignore a working model just because you're too lazy to learn it.

No you can ignore an argument that has been demonstrated to be false several times over, like DET or FET.  Since I have not been around much, I am sure no one has questioned your proof of what aether is lately.  I would like to know what you think it is again.  Include the part about aether "talking" to you also, sorry, the part about it imparting information about it's existence directly to you.  Also include your assumptions of aether being everything, or rather all matter and energy is a form of aether.  I could go quoting previous posts of yours.  You never would explain before. 
I digress, this is not the thread for debunking DET.  My apologies for contributing to the derailment.

What are you whinging about now? The model is linked to and referred to in the description. the definition is fixed, unaltering, openly given, and irrelevant to your straw men which were never part of DET, merely a personal belief resulting from illness: as was explicitly stated multiple times.

1. Round shape of the Earth's shadow during lunar ecllipse.
2. Things dissapearing bottom first over the horizon. Always.
3. Ascending moves the horizon away and we can see further.
4. Stellar motion varies on different hemisphere. There are two poles around which everything rotates.
5. Vertical circumnavigation.
6. Working spherical geometry.
7. Sun sets and sun rises.
8. Direct measurement of angles of sun rays.
9. Man made things orbiting the planet.
10. Direct non-edited photo of the Earth.

This thread wins vs the other, even though we are on FE forum. Nice job, FErs.

This thread wins vs the other, even though we are on FE forum. Nice job, FErs.

Personally I prefer quality over quantity. If observations explained under both FET and RET are accepted as proof, I can happily give plenty.

To prove something, only one proof is sufficient. Giving distinct proofs makes the fact stronger and less reliable on possible mistakes.

You can prove your DET but it relies on the existance of aether. Some FE proofs I have just presented do not even need a gravity or other assumptions. Just pure geometry.

Quote from: Brouwer on December 22, 2015, 08:11:15 AM

This thread wins vs the other, even though we are on FE forum. Nice job, FErs.

Personally I prefer quality over quantity. If observations explained under both FET and RET are accepted as proof, I can happily give plenty.

Yes, but are you going to provide where the observer and what is observed is? You better have A LOT of quality (like 1 thing).

Also, your response should go into the "ten proofs for a FE" instead of here.

To prove something, only one proof is sufficient. Giving distinct proofs makes the fact stronger and less reliable on possible mistakes.

You can prove your DET but it relies on the existance of aether. Some FE proofs I have just presented do not even need a gravity or other assumptions. Just pure geometry.

Pure geometry reliant on certain assumptions about what's observed. If you would care to address what I actually said:

If observations explained under both FET and RET are accepted as proof, I can happily give plenty.

My explanations rely on one assumption: RET also relies on certain assumptions. All science does. At a basic level there's the axiom that the universe is explicable. What's your point?