The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Danukenator123 on October 20, 2010, 03:31:18 PM
-
I'll start this, to continue another forum about UA. There is no proof that dark energy is related to universal acceleration, It is all speculation supported by the fact that there is no proof that Dark energy exists. So far its been hypothesized but not confirmed to exist. Also only when I add "flat earth" to a google search does any mention that Dark Energy actually pertains to UA appear. Most of the search results were to this site.
-
Well I didn't see this thread coming. ::)
Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force? Because the earth is accelerating we can surmise that Dark Energy must be responsible. Exactly as RE would state Gravity exists, without being able to fully explain it.
-
Well I didn't see this thread coming. ::)
Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force? Because the earth is accelerating we can surmise that Dark Energy must be responsible. Exactly as RE would state Gravity exists, without being able to fully explain it.
Not bad for a self-proclaimed troll. Circular reasoning is nice: Dark Energy exists because some models needs it to explain. The deflection is nice too: Even though FET needs gravity too, point to something unexplained in RET.
Now let's review the UA. It requires more power than has ever existed in the Universe. Could Dark Energy be that source. Sure. But as soon as a theory needs a 'fiat' like that, it's not very interesting. Heck, give me that much energy of just one second of its current output and I'd be practically a god.
-
Well I didn't see this thread coming. ::)
Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force? Because the earth is accelerating we can surmise that Dark Energy must be responsible. Exactly as RE would state Gravity exists, without being able to fully explain it.
Not bad for a self-proclaimed troll. Circular reasoning is nice: Dark Energy exists because some models needs it to explain. The deflection is nice too: Even though FET needs gravity too, point to something unexplained in RET.
Now let's review the UA. It requires more power than has ever existed in the Universe. Could Dark Energy be that source. Sure. But as soon as a theory needs a 'fiat' like that, it's not very interesting. Heck, give me that much energy of just one second of its current output and I'd be practically a god.
Many would attribute the existence of the universe to God. With God's almighty power, Dark Energy is possible. Amen.
-
Well I didn't see this thread coming. ::)
Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force? Because the earth is accelerating we can surmise that Dark Energy must be responsible. Exactly as RE would state Gravity exists, without being able to fully explain it.
You and clock wanted to fight so I just sowed the seeds. Also this is a follow up to another thread.
-
Well I didn't see this thread coming. ::)
Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force? Because the earth is accelerating we can surmise that Dark Energy must be responsible. Exactly as RE would state Gravity exists, without being able to fully explain it.
You and clock wanted to fight so I just sowed the seeds. Also this is a follow up to another thread.
Short of ClockTower disproving the existence of God, this one is already over. He gifted it to me in his opening post. Now, how's about you becoming a flat earther then? Its much more fun, and its simple. You just put a thread in the lounge renouncing all the silly claims you have made about the earth being round. We then paddle you and put you through a gruelling initiation. At the end, you are a flat-earther.
-
Well I didn't see this thread coming. ::)
Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force? Because the earth is accelerating we can surmise that Dark Energy must be responsible. Exactly as RE would state Gravity exists, without being able to fully explain it.
"Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force?"
So, your logic is that Dark Energy exists because it is necessarily to UA. In Laymen terms: An substance of hypothesized existence exists because it is critical to an unproven theory.
-
Well I didn't see this thread coming. ::)
Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force? Because the earth is accelerating we can surmise that Dark Energy must be responsible. Exactly as RE would state Gravity exists, without being able to fully explain it.
"Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force?"
So, your logic is that Dark Energy exists because it is necessarily to UA. In Laymen terms: An substance of hypothesized existence exists because it is critical to an unproven theory.
In much the same sense that gravity must exist to explain why masses clump together, yes. ClockTower has trained you well. But it is now time. Let the hate build. You will need it.
-
"In much the same sense that gravity must exist to explain why masses clump together, yes. ClockTower has trained you well. But it is now time. Let the hate build. You will need it."
Can I see the data you are using to support your point? Also, I not that weak to give into my hate.
-
Data for the existence of God, or data that suggests REr's can't explain gravity. Both are a Google search away.
Also, I not that weak to give into my hate.
So be it, Round Earther.
-
Data for the existence of God, or data that suggests REr's can't explain gravity. Both are a Google search away.
Also, I not that weak to give into my hate.
So be it, Round Earther.
Lets start with evidence for your theory. I prefer the usual peer-reviewed, documented research.
-
Data for the existence of God, or data that suggests REr's can't explain gravity. Both are a Google search away.
Also, I not that weak to give into my hate.
So be it, Round Earther.
I'd like the data that FEers can explain gravity. Somehow, I don't think I'll be seeing that anytime soon. Yet the sub-moon causes the second tide "magically" constantly in FET.
-
Data for the existence of God, or data that suggests REr's can't explain gravity. Both are a Google search away.
Also, I not that weak to give into my hate.
So be it, Round Earther.
Lets start with evidence for your theory. I prefer the usual peer-reviewed, documented research.
*Huff*
Even ClockTower has seen you are onto a loser here and has bowed out. I have given a theory as comprehensive as the RE one.
RE assumes gravity, but can't explain it.
FE assumes Dark Energy but can't explain it.
RE uses gravity to explain why you don't float about.
FE uses Dark Energy to explain why you don't float about.
RE says Gravity is 9.81m/s.
FE says UA is 9.81m/s.
RE says gravity is ue to mass which God created.
FE says UA is due to dark energy which god created.
The parallels are striking. If you have any more futile objections, either another FEr will have to answer them, or I will be back tomorrow. But right here, right now ... its bedtime.
Data for the existence of God, or data that suggests REr's can't explain gravity. Both are a Google search away.
Also, I not that weak to give into my hate.
So be it, Round Earther.
I'd like the data that FEers can explain gravity. Somehow, I don't think I'll be seeing that anytime soon. Yet the sub-moon causes the second tide "magically" constantly in FET.
Different Thread. This one is about Dark Energy. You are asking about Moon phenomena.
-
I'd like the data that FEers can explain gravity. Somehow, I don't think I'll be seeing that anytime soon. Yet the sub-moon causes the second tide "magically" constantly in FET.
Different Thread. This one is about Dark Energy. You are asking about Moon phenomena.
You brought up gravity. I guess you can't answer the challenge.
-
Even ClockTower has seen you are onto a loser here and has bowed out. I have given a theory as comprehensive as the RE one.
False.
-
I thought it was the Aether that was accelerating the earth?
Berny
Just had to call 911
-
I thought it was the Aether that was accelerating the earth?
Berny
Just had to call 911
Nope. It's Dark Energy. John Davis, username, uses aether is some convoluted manner to explain his infinite slab model.
-
I thought it was the Aether that was accelerating the earth?
Berny
Just had to call 911
Nope. It's Dark Energy. John Davis, username, uses aether is some convoluted manner to explain his infinite slab model.
Err they should update the FAQ. What pushes the sun/moon anti-moon/anti-sun stars/anti-stars and parsifals around?
Berny
Happy he didn't have to deal with the police
-
I thought it was the Aether that was accelerating the earth?
Berny
Just had to call 911
Nope. It's Dark Energy. John Davis, username, uses aether is some convoluted manner to explain his infinite slab model.
Err they should update the FAQ. What pushes the sun/moon anti-moon/anti-sun stars/anti-stars and parsifals around?
Berny
Happy he didn't have to deal with the police
The FEW talks about objects following magical nexus rings. I don't think there is an anti-sun or any anti-stars. The submoon was 'invented' to produce the second tides once FEers realized that "sloshing" was just too silly.
-
I think the key issue here is that there is no way that dark energy (which in RE at least the amount is roughly known) could provide enough energy to continue to accelerate the earth as close as it would have to be to the speed of light. It would have run out billions of years ago. Unless FET can come up with an unlimited supply of energy, UA is dead.
-
Data for the existence of God, or data that suggests REr's can't explain gravity. Both are a Google search away.
Also, I not that weak to give into my hate.
So be it, Round Earther.
Lets start with evidence for your theory. I prefer the usual peer-reviewed, documented research.
*Huff*
Even ClockTower has seen you are onto a loser here and has bowed out. I have given a theory as comprehensive as the RE one.
RE assumes gravity, but can't explain it.
FE assumes Dark Energy but can't explain it.
RE uses gravity to explain why you don't float about.
FE uses Dark Energy to explain why you don't float about.
RE says Gravity is 9.81m/s.
FE says UA is 9.81m/s.
RE says gravity is ue to mass which God created.
FE says UA is due to dark energy which god created.
The parallels are striking. If you have any more futile objections, either another FEr will have to answer them, or I will be back tomorrow. But right here, right now ... its bedtime.
Data for the existence of God, or data that suggests REr's can't explain gravity. Both are a Google search away.
Also, I not that weak to give into my hate.
So be it, Round Earther.
I'd like the data that FEers can explain gravity. Somehow, I don't think I'll be seeing that anytime soon. Yet the sub-moon causes the second tide "magically" constantly in FET.
Different Thread. This one is about Dark Energy. You are asking about Moon phenomena.
Don't quote me but....
"Gravity, is a natural phenomenon in which objects with mass attract one another. In everyday life, gravitation is most familiar as the agent that gives weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped. Gravitation causes dispersed matter to coalesce, thus accounting for the existence of the Earth, the Sun, and most of the macroscopic objects in the universe. Gravitation is responsible for keeping the Earth and the other planets in their orbits around the Sun; for keeping the Moon in its orbit around the Earth; for the formation of tides; for natural convection, by which fluid flow occurs under the influence of a density gradient and gravity; for heating the interiors of forming stars and planets to very high temperatures; and for various other phenomena observed on Earth."
....I think that counts as explaining Gravity, to a basic level of course. (Braces for the impending wave of math formulas)
As for the second part. The origin of mass is unknown. I believe Stephen Hawking has a new book out that attempts to address it. It isn't relevant to the argument at hand about Dark Energy.
EDIT: If you want to talk origins, post a new subject Debate or General. I sure other people would be interested.
-
about dark matter
the ua theory states that the earth accelerates up, so if i got a person to jump of the edge of the earth, and another person to jump of the other end, what happens?
-
Well I didn't see this thread coming. ::)
Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force? Because the earth is accelerating we can surmise that Dark Energy must be responsible. Exactly as RE would state Gravity exists, without being able to fully explain it.
isnt that just like saying gravity exists, or else how else do we stay on the ground on a round earth?
if you want to make a precedent of evidence, please add some evidence for dark energy
the earth in FE theory doesnt have to be accelerated by that, it could be electromagnetic, electrostatic, and it could be pressure
-
Well I didn't see this thread coming. ::)
Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force? Because the earth is accelerating we can surmise that Dark Energy must be responsible. Exactly as RE would state Gravity exists, without being able to fully explain it.
isnt that just like saying gravity exists, or else how else do we stay on the ground on a round earth?
if you want to make a precedent of evidence, please add some evidence for dark energy
the earth in FE theory doesnt have to be accelerated by that, it could be electromagnetic, electrostatic, and it could be pressure
Don't forget that FET still needs gravity to explain the tides and Foucault's Pendulum (though poorly). So FET needs three unexplained forces: Dark Energy (for the UA), Dark Energy (for the expansion of Universe) and Gravity, while RET needs only two. As a rule, complaining that gravity isn't well explained impugns FET and RET equally.
-
Ya, lets not confuse Dark Energy and the Gravity. The UA is supposed to account for our acceleration towards the Earth in FET, which in RET is accounted for by gravitation. Dark Energy is not required for our local observations of gravitation on Earth. In RET dark energy is suggested to make sense of long distance observations of the universal expansion at large, which is much harder to observe. FET requires Dark Energy to explain how the UA accelerates the Earth, which is a much larger step since we are much closer to the Earth and can more carefully observe it. Because we live on the Earth and we are clearly not affected by the energy of the UA we know that a semi-infinite energy source is not enough to make UA work, the energy source needs to be selective to the Earth.
Hence, RET Dark Energy /= FET Dark Energy, not by a long shot. RET'ers can ignore Dark Energy and still be happy about what is going on in our galaxy. FET'ers need smart Dark Energy to stop from flying into outer space every time they jump.
-
I think the key issue here is that there is no way that dark energy (which in RE at least the amount is roughly known) could provide enough energy to continue to accelerate the earth as close as it would have to be to the speed of light. It would have run out billions of years ago. Unless FET can come up with an unlimited supply of energy, UA is dead.
This is incorrect. Dark Energy is incredibly abundant in the universe. Consider all the matter, stars plantes etc in the universe. It is a tiny proportion of the universe compared with dark energy. There is an almost inexhaustible supply. I hear often that Dark energy would need to be colossal to get earth accelerating towards the speed of light. Well there is a colossal amount of it. It is 73% of infinity.
(http://edelweiss.in2p3.fr/Presentation/Images/DarkMatterPie.jpg)
http://edelweiss.in2p3.fr/Presentation/index.php
-
I think the key issue here is that there is no way that dark energy (which in RE at least the amount is roughly known) could provide enough energy to continue to accelerate the earth as close as it would have to be to the speed of light. It would have run out billions of years ago. Unless FET can come up with an unlimited supply of energy, UA is dead.
This is incorrect. Dark Energy is incredibly abundant in the universe. Consider all the matter, stars plantes etc in the universe. It is a tiny proportion of the universe compared with dark energy. There is an almost inexhaustible supply. I hear often that Dark energy would need to be colossal to get earth accelerating towards the speed of light. Well there is a colossal amount of it. It is 73% of infinity.
(http://edelweiss.in2p3.fr/Presentation/Images/DarkMatterPie.jpg)
http://edelweiss.in2p3.fr/Presentation/index.php
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.
In order to make celestial predictions they need the vast majority of the universe to be filled with "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" which they use to account for gravity's shortcomings. The existence of Dark Energy and Dark Matter in the RET universe is due to gravity's utter inability to make predictions or explain our observations of the universe.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
We've already explained to you that your calculation of the distance from the Earth to the Sun is bogus. I agree that RET is the basis of measurement of the Universe. So let's see your calculation of the distance to the stars and galaxies and how fast they're retreating. I expect you to dodge with a plea to ignorance, by the way.
-
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:
(http://www.shop4education.co.uk/5902-2683-thickbox/OrbitTellurium2-bsitKDgHrx.jpg)
-
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?
(http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/6283/009telluriumtl08.jpg)
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!
(http://cache.wists.com/thumbnails/e/c3/ec3680081267644d9852866393b1b381-orig)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?