The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: ClockTower on November 11, 2010, 11:48:12 AM
-
REers correctly argue that FET is inconsistent and that makes it a bad theory. Science expects and indeed condones competing theories. However, the competing theorists should quickly determine a bevy of experiments to determine which is right.
FET suffers from worse than unresolved competing theories. It's internally inconsistent.
One great example is Tom Bishop's wiki about the distance from the Earth to the Sun. He choses the latitude of 45o, Any other latitude provides a different result.
Another great example would be excuses we hear about the "sinking ship" evidence. "Bendy light" and perspective conflict in trying to explain the evidence.
Next we keep seeing a substitution tactics. When we argue that an infinite FE can't have finite mass, John Davis invokes math of a perfectly flat disc. When we argue that model would mean that 'g' would not vary with altitude, as is observed, John Davis say the same model doesn't apply because the FE is perfectly flat.
A good model is internally and externally consistent. FET is not.
-
REers correctly argue that FET is inconsistent and that makes it a bad theory.
So in RET is gravity caused by subatomic puller particles, or bendy space?
-
REers correctly argue that FET is inconsistent and that makes it a bad theory.
So in RET is gravity caused by subatomic puller particles, or bendy space?
Irrelevant. This thread is about inconsistencies in FET, not RET. Please try to stay on topic, will you?
-
REers correctly argue that FET is inconsistent and that makes it a bad theory.
So in RET is gravity caused by subatomic puller particles, or bendy space?
I imagine that gravity is caused by the same mechanism in both FET and RET, or did you want FET to use magic again?
-
Irrelevant. This thread is about inconsistencies in FET, not RET.
It's hypocritical to accuse FET of being inconsistent when RET is inconsistent in a number of areas.
-
Irrelevant. This thread is about inconsistencies in FET, not RET.
It's hypocritical to accuse FET of being inconsistent when RET is inconsistent in a number of areas.
Yes, it would be. So why not start a topic on that issue? Please include in the first post the 'number of areas' where RET is inconsistent.
-
Irrelevant. This thread is about inconsistencies in FET, not RET.
It's hypocritical to accuse FET of being inconsistent when RET is inconsistent in a number of areas.
There is no such thing as hypocrisy in science. Good theories survive and bad theories fall. If RET is inconsistent in the range of far galaxies and expansion of the universe, that doesn't mean that FET can get away with failing at easily made observations on Earth. Nobody here is saying RET is perfect, just that it makes much better predictions here on Earth. Since FET makes no predictions about the galaxy at large then I don't see how you can compare it to the area where RET currently has issues.
-
It's hypocritical to accuse FET of being inconsistent when RET is inconsistent in a number of areas.
It is absolutely not. If you want to complain about RE then go there - http://theroundearthsociety.net/
-
Irrelevant. This thread is about inconsistencies in FET, not RET.
It's hypocritical to accuse FET of being inconsistent when RET is inconsistent in a number of areas.
Discussing the hypocrisy of RE'ers is also irrelevant and off topic. Again, this thread is about the inconsistency of FET, not RET. FET is supposed to be the better theory, so therefore it should be more consistent than RET. This does not appear to be the case.
-
Discussing the hypocrisy of RE'ers is also irrelevant and off topic. Again, this thread is about the inconsistency of FET, not RET. FET is supposed to be the better theory, so therefore it should be more consistent than RET. This does not appear to be the case.
Lady Blount's trials on the Old Bedford Canal show that Flat Earth Theory is more consistent with reality than Round Earth Theory.
-
Discussing the hypocrisy of RE'ers is also irrelevant and off topic. Again, this thread is about the inconsistency of FET, not RET. FET is supposed to be the better theory, so therefore it should be more consistent than RET. This does not appear to be the case.
Lady Blount's trials on the Old Bedford Canal show that Flat Earth Theory is more consistent with reality than Round Earth Theory.
Please provide evidence of your outlandish claim. In particular, please produce the photograph she claims to have commissioned.
Also, we're talking about self-consistency. FET is not consistent with itself. Remember that even you can't produce consistently the distance from the Sun to the Earth over various latitudes.
-
FES cannot even tell us which set of theories we should be referring to. I asked in the past for a FES summary of theories (and basic reasioning of why this theory over the other contenders plus a short explaination of what it is), guess what? No answer!
Is it UA or gravity?
Infinate earth or not?
Bendy light, yes or no?
Explain primary and secondary waves in earth quakes.
Explain Corriellis effect.
An accurate FE map or of the several on the board, which one should we be using?
Provide a Sun light day night map (time zones).
Provide reasoning for Northen and Souther hemisphere seasons and constelations.
Dead recongning verses GPS verses stellar navigation, is there any evidence of inconsistancies?
Why has the FES never posted expiments or experimental results (Every FET is a work in progress)?
-
Discussing the hypocrisy of RE'ers is also irrelevant and off topic. Again, this thread is about the inconsistency of FET, not RET. FET is supposed to be the better theory, so therefore it should be more consistent than RET. This does not appear to be the case.
Lady Blount's trials on the Old Bedford Canal show that Flat Earth Theory is more consistent with reality than Round Earth Theory.
There have been many trials on that canal showing both sides and that it is inconclusive. Pick something more consistant.
-
Discussing the hypocrisy of RE'ers is also irrelevant and off topic. Again, this thread is about the inconsistency of FET, not RET. FET is supposed to be the better theory, so therefore it should be more consistent than RET. This does not appear to be the case.
Lady Blount's trials on the Old Bedford Canal show that Flat Earth Theory is more consistent with reality than Round Earth Theory.
However, your method of triangulating the distance to the sun does not give consistent results when observers are at different latitudes.
-
I thought ERTW's post in another topic was excellent and relevant here, so here it is again:
...
The funny thing is, to be serious FET would have to propose a model of how the Sun might move, and that model could be tested. For now there is no serious FET model so there is nothing to apply math to! Until then there is no FET to really disprove, more like FEC "flat earth concept". Because of this it is so easy for them to keep changing the position and size of everything. There is no real model, only bits and peices that don't fit together.
-
I thought ERTW's post in another topic was excellent and relevant here, so here it is again:
...
The funny thing is, to be serious FET would have to propose a model of how the Sun might move, and that model could be tested. For now there is no serious FET model so there is nothing to apply math to! Until then there is no FET to really disprove, more like FEC "flat earth concept". Because of this it is so easy for them to keep changing the position and size of everything. There is no real model, only bits and peices that don't fit together.
I agree, this response does summarise the FE position but I woulldn't even go as far to call it a concept. No predictions can be made. Not even day or night cycles.
-
Irrelevant. This thread is about inconsistencies in FET, not RET.
It's hypocritical to accuse FET of being inconsistent when RET is inconsistent in a number of areas.
Please explain with your hundreds of peer reviews from all over the globe, yes "globe", and explain in detail why RET is inconsistent..
I and millions of others have a hard time wondering why FET is the more accurate or consistent theory.
Even IF RET had some inconsistencies due to scientific flaws, it doesn't mean FET is the more logical theory by any means. You have the burden of proof, now get explaining.
-
Please explain with your hundreds of peer reviews from all over the globe, yes "globe", and explain in detail why RET is inconsistent.
RET cannot explain the results of the bedford canal experiments.
RET cannot tell me the mechanism for gravity.
RET cannot demonstrate the existence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy.
RET cannot tell me why the galaxies to spin as if they were solid disks.
RET cannot tell me whether the earth is hollow or not. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is hollow.
RET cannot decide whether the earth is physically growing or not. Some REers believe that the earth is physically growing.
RET cannot tell me how old the earth is. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is 6000 years old. Some believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Why cant RE'ers decide?
RET cannot decide whether the earth is geocentric or heliocentric. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is geocentric.
These are inconsistencies in the RET model in the same way that you guys pointing out minority FET beliefs (ie. first post of this thread) is an inconsistency in FET.
-
Please explain with your hundreds of peer reviews from all over the globe, yes "globe", and explain in detail why RET is inconsistent.
RET cannot explain the results of the bedford canal experiments.
RET cannot tell me the mechanism for gravity.
RET cannot demonstrate the existence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy.
RET cannot tell me why the galaxies to spin as if they were solid disks.
RET cannot tell me whether the earth is hollow or not. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is hollow.
RET cannot decide whether the earth is physically growing or not. Some REers believe that the earth is physically growing.
RET cannot tell me how old the earth is. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is 6000 years old. Some believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Why cant RE'ers decide?
RET cannot decide whether the earth is geocentric or heliocentric. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is geocentric.
These are inconsistencies in the RET model in the same way that you guys pointing out minority FET beliefs (ie. first post of this thread) is an inconsistency in FET.
We are discussing inconsistencies in FET here, why can't you understand that?
-
Please explain with your hundreds of peer reviews from all over the globe, yes "globe", and explain in detail why RET is inconsistent.
RET cannot explain the results of the bedford canal experiments.
Atmospheric refractive phenomena are a very likely explanation for the results of the Bedford Canal experiments.
RET cannot tell me the mechanism for gravity.
And FET can't tell me the mechanism for the UA, so we're even.
RET cannot demonstrate the existence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy.
Actually, it can. http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMZ6GSVYVE_index_0.html
RET cannot tell me why the galaxies to spin as if they were solid disks.
Dark matter.
RET cannot tell me whether the earth is hollow or not. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is hollow.
Seismic surveys say that the earth is not hollow. If you can find some evidence to support Hollow Earth theory, then feel free to let us know.
RET cannot decide whether the earth is physically growing or not. Some REers believe that the earth is physically growing.
Actually, the earth is physically growing by an average of about one ton of space debris entering the atmosphere per day.
RET cannot tell me how old the earth is. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is 6000 years old. Some believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Why cant RE'ers decide?
The prevailing theory is 4.5 billion years. When you find some evidence to support Young Earth Creationism, feel free to let us know.
RET cannot decide whether the earth is geocentric or heliocentric. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is geocentric.
Since a number of space probes have explored the solar system, I'd say that heliocentric would be a pretty safe bet.
These are inconsistencies in the RET model in the same way that you guys pointing out minority FET beliefs (ie. first post of this thread) is an inconsistency in FET.
Tom, you do realize that all of the fringe RET theories you pointed out have far more consistent models than FET does, don't you? At least all of those fringe RE theories can explain sunrises and sunsets without resorting to tricks of perspective or bendy light.
-
RET cannot explain the results of the bedford canal experiments.
Yes, it is explained. And it is only point that has something to do with the round earth.
RET cannot tell me the mechanism for gravity.
RET cannot demonstrate the existence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy.
RET cannot tell me why the galaxies to spin as if they were solid disks.
RET cannot tell me whether the earth is hollow or not. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is hollow.
RET cannot decide whether the earth is physically growing or not. Some REers believe that the earth is physically growing.
RET cannot tell me how old the earth is. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is 6000 years old. Some believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Why cant RE'ers decide?
These have absolutely nothing to do with the Earth shape. And FE won't have these answers either. Try to find something to pick which FE has conclusively decided and RE has not.
RET cannot decide whether the earth is geocentric or heliocentric. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is geocentric.
It's decided that it is heliocentric. What some eccentric persons choose to believe isn't again nothing to do with the RE.
So, all your points are just futile attempts.
-
This thread has started as a debate with the inconsistences of FE, Tom Bishop is derailing and changing the viewpoint to make everyone talk about the "inconsistences" of the RE, please, do not fall for that and stay on topic.
It's a nice distracting method, and Tom is good at it, cuz they cannot counter argument the FE inconsistences
-
Lets make it then concrete and start with the distance to the Sun and to the Moon. Can the FEers decide the method to measure the distance which gives consistent results and then really measure the distance?
-
Please explain with your hundreds of peer reviews from all over the globe, yes "globe", and explain in detail why RET is inconsistent.
RET cannot explain the results of the bedford canal experiments.
RET cannot tell me the mechanism for gravity.
RET cannot demonstrate the existence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy.
RET cannot tell me why the galaxies to spin as if they were solid disks.
RET cannot tell me whether the earth is hollow or not. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is hollow.
RET cannot decide whether the earth is physically growing or not. Some REers believe that the earth is physically growing.
RET cannot tell me how old the earth is. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is 6000 years old. Some believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Why cant RE'ers decide?
RET cannot decide whether the earth is geocentric or heliocentric. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is geocentric.
These are inconsistencies in the RET model in the same way that you guys pointing out minority FET beliefs (ie. first post of this thread) is an inconsistency in FET.
Round Earth can tell you the mechanism for gravity. You're just mathematically illiterate and probably haven't even had Introductory Physics so you couldn't understand the proof.
I didn't know FET could explain dark energy and dark matter. I'd really like to see that.
Again, Round Earth physics can explain galactic formation and motion, you're just scientifically/physically illiterate.
Round Earth can definitively give proof of the Earth's interior composition.
Round Earth clearly explains how old the Earth is according to science. You're confusing science and religion, which makes me tend to believe that you might be educationally illiterate as well.
I'm just making the assumption that you're scientifically illiterate, so I forgive you for not being sure about these things. If FET can make weird claims, I can make my own as well. If you'd like to elaborate on your science education, I'd love to know.
-
I'm glad to see that after I've made some valid points that FET people can't dispute, they just move on to another discussion. This thread is a victory for Round Earth.
-
I'm glad to see that after I've made some valid points that FET people can't dispute, they just move on to another discussion. This thread is a victory for Round Earth.
Your above post isn't worth responding to.
-
LOL Tom, a quick search on the internet will tell you results of the Bedford Canal experiment. It will also tell you that since we've been able to travel into space the whole idea of the Bedford Canal was shot to shit because we were able to say once and for all the Earth is round.
-
RET cannot tell me why the galaxies to spin as if they were solid disks.
Tom has this one. GO FET!
-
galazies do not spin like solid disks, or else we would not have spirals or arms. the gravity of other stars pull other stars in, so to balance that, the stars spin to counteract the inward force. thats what i read somewhere
-
REers correctly argue that FET is inconsistent and that makes it a bad theory.
So in RET is gravity caused by subatomic puller particles, or bendy space?
Tom, don't be a dick, FET says gravity is caused by INIFINITE ACCELERATION!!!
FUCKING INFINITE ACCELERATION!!!
-
Discussing the hypocrisy of RE'ers is also irrelevant and off topic. Again, this thread is about the inconsistency of FET, not RET. FET is supposed to be the better theory, so therefore it should be more consistent than RET. This does not appear to be the case.
Lady Blount's trials on the Old Bedford Canal show that Flat Earth Theory is more consistent with reality than Round Earth Theory.
That's one experiment with historically flawed data. Round Earth has countless tests with perfect data.
-
Discussing the hypocrisy of RE'ers is also irrelevant and off topic. Again, this thread is about the inconsistency of FET, not RET. FET is supposed to be the better theory, so therefore it should be more consistent than RET. This does not appear to be the case.
Lady Blount's trials on the Old Bedford Canal show that Flat Earth Theory is more consistent with reality than Round Earth Theory.
That's one experiment with historically flawed data. Round Earth has countless tests with perfect data.
Link to perfect data please?
-
Please explain with your hundreds of peer reviews from all over the globe, yes "globe", and explain in detail why RET is inconsistent.
RET cannot explain the results of the bedford canal experiments.
Really Tom? Other people have done it and found curvature, and others have found it inconclusive. So I guess NO ONE can explain it.
RET cannot tell me the mechanism for gravity.
FET has gravity on other planets in it's model and you cannot explain the mechanism for UA. Sure gravity is still not fully explained, but it has a lot on UA.
RET cannot demonstrate the existence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy.
Well, if RET cannot demonstrate the existence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy, and I've read that UA is propelled by one of those, then UA is out isn't it?
RET cannot tell me why the galaxies to spin as if they were solid disks.
Not all do, ours does because of a massive black hole in the center.
RET cannot tell me whether the earth is hollow or not. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is hollow.
Saying some RE'ers believe the Earth is hollow is unfair. One group of crazies think the Earth is hollow. RET says the Earth is solid.
RET cannot decide whether the earth is physically growing or not. Some REers believe that the earth is physically growing.
Is it a new theory? Just because someone makes a theory and some others accept it doesn't mean we're divided.
RET cannot tell me how old the earth is. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is 6000 years old. Some believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Why cant RE'ers decide?
Hardcore Christians believe the Earth is 6000 years old. The rest of us sane people believe it's 4.5 billion.
RET cannot decide whether the earth is geocentric or heliocentric. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is geocentric.
Once again, the standard accepted model is heliocentric. I don't know of many people who believe the Earth is round and at the center.
These are inconsistencies in the RET model in the same way that you guys pointing out minority FET beliefs (ie. first post of this thread) is an inconsistency in FET.
Tom, please try harder next time. This post was full of so much fail you should be ashamed.
-
Ok, I'm pretty uninformed on this debate so excuse me if my observation is stupid but...Haven't we been to space and directly observed the fact that the Earth is round? Is there seriously any concrete evidence from FET that can convince anyone otherwise? I'm seriously confused...
-
Please explain with your hundreds of peer reviews from all over the globe, yes "globe", and explain in detail why RET is inconsistent.
RET cannot explain the results of the bedford canal experiments.
Really Tom? Other people have done it and found curvature, and others have found it inconclusive. So I guess NO ONE can explain it.
RET cannot tell me the mechanism for gravity.
FET has gravity on other planets in it's model and you cannot explain the mechanism for UA. Sure gravity is still not fully explained, but it has a lot on UA.
RET cannot demonstrate the existence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy.
Well, if RET cannot demonstrate the existence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy, and I've read that UA is propelled by one of those, then UA is out isn't it?
RET cannot tell me why the galaxies to spin as if they were solid disks.
Not all do, ours does because of a massive black hole in the center.
RET cannot tell me whether the earth is hollow or not. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is hollow.
Saying some RE'ers believe the Earth is hollow is unfair. One group of crazies think the Earth is hollow. RET says the Earth is solid.
RET cannot decide whether the earth is physically growing or not. Some REers believe that the earth is physically growing.
Is it a new theory? Just because someone makes a theory and some others accept it doesn't mean we're divided.
RET cannot tell me how old the earth is. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is 6000 years old. Some believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Why cant RE'ers decide?
Hardcore Christians believe the Earth is 6000 years old. The rest of us sane people believe it's 4.5 billion.
RET cannot decide whether the earth is geocentric or heliocentric. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is geocentric.
Once again, the standard accepted model is heliocentric. I don't know of many people who believe the Earth is round and at the center.
These are inconsistencies in the RET model in the same way that you guys pointing out minority FET beliefs (ie. first post of this thread) is an inconsistency in FET.
Tom, please try harder next time. This post was full of so much fail you should be ashamed.
That there are fringe RE theories does not change the fact that there is an overwhelming consensus among the scientific community about the general size, shape and composition of the earth. Even with limited understanding of the universe and fundamental forces, RET has various models that can make a wide variety of predictions to a high degree of precision and accuracy. From the "theories" discussed on this "official FES debate forum" by the preeminent "FET researchers", it is obvious that FET is so fractured that there is no consensus on much of anything beyond saying that the earth is flat and someone is trying to cover up that fact. When FE'ers can come up with a plausible theory than can explain why observers on the equator can observe 12 hours of daylight, 365 days a year while the polar regions alternate between perpetual night and midnight sun, then maybe you can jump up and down about RET's inconsistencies without embarrassing yourself.
-
Minority beliefs of Round Earthers are inconsistencies to Round Earth Theory in the same way that you guys claim that minority FE beliefs are inconsistencies in FET.
-
Minority beliefs of Round Earthers are inconsistencies to Round Earth Theory in the same way that you guys claim that minority FE beliefs are inconsistencies in FET.
I don't think the term "minority" really applies when each believer has their own model. And yet again, we are discussing the inconsistencies with FET, not those with RET. I'll try one more time to get this through your head, if you wish to discuss inconsistencies with RET, please make a separate thread.
-
REers correctly argue that FET is inconsistent and that makes it a bad theory.
So in RET is gravity caused by subatomic puller particles, or bendy space?
Tom, don't be a dick, FET says gravity is caused by INIFINITE ACCELERATION!!!
FUCKING INFINITE ACCELERATION!!!
they never said infinite acceleration, they only mentioned that it has been accelrating till today. if i put you in a car when you were born, and drove and kept accelerating, you would call that "infinite acceleration" but it isnt, only starts and stops when it does.
d
i dont think any FEer ever said the acceleration never ends
i may be wrong tho
but i still dont see how we are talking abvout FE minorities. i just see different theories come and go
-
Minority beliefs of Round Earthers are inconsistencies to Round Earth Theory in the same way that you guys claim that minority FE beliefs are inconsistencies in FET.
I don't think the term "minority" really applies when each believer has their own model. And yet again, we are discussing the inconsistencies with FET, not those with RET. I'll try one more time to get this through your head, if you wish to discuss inconsistencies with RET, please make a separate thread.
The Minority beliefs in RET are not argued usually argued here.
-
Minority beliefs of Round Earthers are inconsistencies to Round Earth Theory in the same way that you guys claim that minority FE beliefs are inconsistencies in FET.
No, hardcore Christian beliefs do not count in the beliefs of RE'ers. They are not science! When there are six to eight real Flat Earth believes and four have different models, I think that's a higher percentage than the Round Earthers who have different beliefs.
-
Minority beliefs of Round Earthers are inconsistencies to Round Earth Theory in the same way that you guys claim that minority FE beliefs are inconsistencies in FET.
No, hardcore Christian beliefs do not count in the beliefs of RE'ers. They are not science! When there are six to eight real Flat Earth believes and four have different models, I think that's a higher percentage than the Round Earthers who have different beliefs.
Also Tom, are you going to provide counter arguments for what I posted, or run with you tail between your legs like usual?
-
Minority beliefs of Round Earthers are inconsistencies to Round Earth Theory in the same way that you guys claim that minority FE beliefs are inconsistencies in FET.
Tom, no RE'er on this site debates RET from a hollow earth or other fringe RET perspective, therefore those fringe theories are irrelevant. Many FE'ers on this site debate FET using a variety of different models. The RET scientific community has reached an overwhelming consensus with a model of the earth that has a great deal of predictive power. FET has not. Even fringe RE theories like hollow earth and geocentric models have far better predictive powers than FE does and no amount of whining will change that.
-
No, hardcore Christian beliefs do not count in the beliefs of RE'ers. They are not science!
Well, then with all of RET's magical gravities, dark matters, and dark energies, those Christian fundamentalist beliefs should fit right in, shouldn't they?
-
Tom, no RE'er on this site debates RET from a hollow earth or other fringe RET perspective, therefore those fringe theories are irrelevant.
Why do they have to post here for it to be a minority RE belief which is inconsistent with the rest of RET? ???
-
No, hardcore Christian beliefs do not count in the beliefs of RE'ers. They are not science!
Well, then with all of RET's magical gravities, dark matters, and dark energies, those Christian fundamentalist beliefs should fit right in, shouldn't they?
No, gravity is consistent in what we believe. The Earth is larger therefore its gravitational pull is greater. The moon's mass is much smaller, therefore astronauts experience less gravitational pull and can jumper higher and hit golf balls further on the moon. Beyond that, the Sun has a greater mass and gravitational pull than all those, and that is why its affects can be felt up to 1 light year away from it.
-
Tom, no RE'er on this site debates RET from a hollow earth or other fringe RET perspective, therefore those fringe theories are irrelevant.
Why do they have to post here for it to be a minority RE belief which is inconsistent with the rest of RET? ???
Fringe RE beliefs such as hollow earth are not a part of the the RET consensus. I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand. Now can we get back on topic and discuss what FE'ers are doing to resolve FET's inconsistencies? Please?
-
No, gravity is consistent in what we believe.
No it isn't. You have two contradicting theories for gravity. One supposes that gravity occurs via sub-atomic puller particles called "Gravitons" and the other supposes the ridiculous notion that the fabric of space bends.
Which is it? If RET is so overwhelmingly successful, why can't it even tell us what causes gravity?
Fringe RE beliefs such as hollow earth are not a part of the the RET consensus.
So what makes you think that things like a flat moon and sun are part of the FET consensus?
I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand. Now can we get back on topic and discuss what FE'ers are doing to resolve FET's inconsistencies? Please?
Well, what are RE'ers doing to resolve the inconsistencies between RET theories? Is the earth 6000 years old or 4.5 billion years old? Why can't you guys manage to get your story straight?
RET is obviously inconsistent since some people disagree about aspects of the model.
-
No, gravity is consistent in what we believe.
No it isn't. You have two contradicting theories for gravity. One supposes that gravity occurs via sub-atomic puller particles called "Gravitons" and the other supposes the ridiculous notion that the fabric of space bends.
Which is it? If RET is so overwhelmingly successful, why can't it even tell us what causes gravity?
Please show us how the two theories for gravity contradict each other.
How is not being able to provide the cause of gravity an inconsistency?
-
Well, what are RE'ers doing to resolve the inconsistencies between RET theories? Is the earth 6000 years old or 4.5 billion years old? Why can't you guys manage to get your story straight?
RET is obviously inconsistent since some people disagree about aspects of the model.
Please tell us which RE scientist has published in a peer-reviewed journal an article claiming that the Earth is 6000 years old.
-
No, gravity is consistent in what we believe.
No it isn't. You have two contradicting theories for gravity. One supposes that gravity occurs via sub-atomic puller particles called "Gravitons" and the other supposes the ridiculous notion that the fabric of space bends.
Which is it? If RET is so overwhelmingly successful, why can't it even tell us what causes gravity?
Even though the fundamental mechanism of gravity is not completely understood, there are several models that can predict its actions to a high degree of accuracy and precision.
Fringe RE beliefs such as hollow earth are not a part of the the RET consensus.
So what makes you think that things like a flat moon and sun are part of the FET consensus?
Simple, there is no FET consensus about the moon or much of anything else. That's my point.
I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand. Now can we get back on topic and discuss what FE'ers are doing to resolve FET's inconsistencies? Please?
Well, what are RE'ers doing to resolve the inconsistencies between RET theories? Is the earth 6000 years old or 4.5 billion years old? Why can't you guys manage to get your story straight?
RET is obviously inconsistent since some people disagree about aspects of the model.
*bangs head against a wall several times*
Tom, the RET scientific community rejects fringe RE theories that conflict with the consensus until such time when supporters of those fringe RE theories can provide such evidence to demonstrate that the fringe RE theory more plausible than the currently accepted one.
And, once again, I must point out that this thread is about the inconsistencies of FET, not RET. Please stay on topic or I will see if I can get a mod to warn you about derailing this thread.
-
Markjo just got trolled.
-
The only way to not fall into the trolling pit of Tom Bishop is ignoring him.
As you see, he's unable to explain the FET inconsistencies, so he tries to derail the thread focusing on the RE only "inconsistence", gravity, but he hasn't said a word yet in PizzaPlanet's thread about RE inconsistences!
Obvious troll is obvios.