The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: mabelobe on February 18, 2011, 06:20:38 PM
-
Ok without trolls this time.
After reading many of the posts in this thread and many other threads i would like to ask a few questions.
(1) If the sun as FET says is in a stationary position above the earth could you explain how night and day work? and also why it is light in some parts of the world while dark in others, if the earth is flat then surely night would come to every country at the same time instead of dark in the uk and light in america lets say?
(2) Could the FET explain the aurora borealis or northern lights and aurora australis southern lights?
(3) Can you also explain why we have four poles. 2 being magnetic south and north pole and also 2 being geographical north and south. If the earth was flat these would not exist?
(4) Also if antartica exists which part of the flat earth does it reside as you do not have north and south with a flat disc you just have degrees?
(5) Can you explain why the millions of euros were spent on the solar heliographic observatory to monitor solar flares which cause geomagnetic storms over the magnetic poles, when these storms get strong enough countries have major power cuts this has been recorded in recent times. We know it does happen because of the southern and northern lights.
(6) When you look through a powerful telescope at the moon lets say you can easily see it is a globe?
(7) I could keep on going with questions, when man first went into space why was it announced that the earth was definitely a globe? What possible reason would the powers that be have to say that if it were not true? as we spent many years thinking thinking it was flat back in the past.
-
After reading many of the posts in this thread
Um, your the OP and I'm the first reply. Are you somehow psychic?
-
Ok, if you want a better answer, "here we go again" is the best title you could've put. Those questions have been answered numerous times before so, if like you claim, you have read the replies in this post but "many others", you would well have a better idea than just putting forth old questions.
-
If the sun as FET says is in a stationary position above the earth
Where did you read this?
-
Ok without trolls this time.
But you're posting? ???
-
Here we go again.
-
the faq should help with most of your questions even if the explanation is perfect it gives you a good idea what the belief in FET is about
-
You clearly can't lurk for shit. Before you act all pompous in here, how about you actually figure out what you are talking about first. You just look extremely retarded in your ignorance.
Ok without trolls this time.
After reading many of the posts in this thread and many other threads i would like to ask a few questions.
(1) If the sun as FET says is in a stationary position above the earth could you explain how night and day work? and also why it is light in some parts of the world while dark in others, if the earth is flat then surely night would come to every country at the same time instead of dark in the uk and light in america lets say?
No, the Sun acts as a spotlight, and only illuminates a section of the Earth as it points its way around in a circular motion.
Read the FAQ
(2) Could the FET explain the aurora borealis or northern lights and aurora australis southern lights?
What about them?
(3) Can you also explain why we have four poles. 2 being magnetic south and north pole and also 2 being geographical north and south. If the earth was flat these would not exist?
This is quite simple. The center of the Earth is magnetic North and Geographical North. The rim of the Earth is Magnetic South and the is no singular geographical south.
Read the FAQ
(4) Also if antartica exists which part of the flat earth does it reside as you do not have north and south with a flat disc you just have degrees?
Oh I get it now, you did not lurk, at all. Did you?
Read the FAQ
(5) Can you explain why the millions of euros were spent on the solar heliographic observatory to monitor solar flares which cause geomagnetic storms over the magnetic poles, when these storms get strong enough countries have major power cuts this has been recorded in recent times. We know it does happen because of the southern and northern lights.
What needs to be explained?
(6) When you look through a powerful telescope at the moon lets say you can easily see it is a globe?
Ok, lets say. Now what?
(7) I could keep on going with questions, when man first went into space why was it announced that the earth was definitely a globe? What possible reason would the powers that be have to say that if it were not true? as we spent many years thinking thinking it was flat back in the past.
Holy Shit.
Read the FAQ
-
Ok without trolls this time.
After reading many of the posts in this thread and many other threads i would like to ask a few questions.
(1) If the sun as FET says is in a stationary position above the earth could you explain how night and day work? and also why it is light in some parts of the world while dark in others, if the earth is flat then surely night would come to every country at the same time instead of dark in the uk and light in america lets say?
(2) Could the FET explain the aurora borealis or northern lights and aurora australis southern lights?
(3) Can you also explain why we have four poles. 2 being magnetic south and north pole and also 2 being geographical north and south. If the earth was flat these would not exist?
(4) Also if antartica exists which part of the flat earth does it reside as you do not have north and south with a flat disc you just have degrees?
(5) Can you explain why the millions of euros were spent on the solar heliographic observatory to monitor solar flares which cause geomagnetic storms over the magnetic poles, when these storms get strong enough countries have major power cuts this has been recorded in recent times. We know it does happen because of the southern and northern lights.
(6) When you look through a powerful telescope at the moon lets say you can easily see it is a globe?
(7) I could keep on going with questions, when man first went into space why was it announced that the earth was definitely a globe? What possible reason would the powers that be have to say that if it were not true? as we spent many years thinking thinking it was flat back in the past.
I wasn't trying to troll you myself. Just giving you a fair warning, the trolls ARE going to pick this apart without answering your questions. Good luck, hope this helps, but I strongly suspect you're in for a headache.
-
After reading many of the posts in this thread
Um, your the OP and I'm the first reply. Are you somehow psychic?
I lol'd far more than I should have.
-
The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights ;D
-
"This is quite simple. The center of the Earth is magnetic North and Geographical North. The rim of the Earth is Magnetic South and the is no singular geographical south".
Prove it i'm waiting for you to convince me oh you cannot because your logic is obviously flawed so we have the aurora in the east west north and south would like to see some aurora pictures from lets say Japan. ;D
-
Where are you getting the idea that anybody is claiming aurorae in Japan? Before making an argument, you need to understand what it is exactly that you're arguing against. Then you should probably go ahead and learn how to construct an argument, if you really want to get ambitious.
-
The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights ;D
Attached to? What sort of strange universe do you live in where the planets are held up by strings?
-
don't ask me ask english gentleman he was the one who stated that, or should i say thats how i interpreted it. The strange universe that i live in as you put it, has a globe called earth in it. How about yourself! ;D
-
The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights ;D
Attached to? What sort of strange universe do you live in where the planets are held up by strings?
Maybe he meant Celestial Gears - so they would be attached to - Cogs?
Berny
Thinks this conversation has run its course.
-
The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights ;D
Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel? ???
-
The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights ;D
Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel? ???
Inertia. Unless there is some force acting upon the sun, it'll just sit there.
-
The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights ;D
Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel? ???
Inertia. Unless there is some force acting upon the sun, it'll just sit there.
Or continue travelling its geodesic.
-
The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights ;D
Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel? ???
Inertia. Unless there is some force acting upon the sun, it'll just sit there.
Or continue travelling its geodesic.
Which would still require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE, moving in a circular path above the FE and expanding and contracting the radius of its orbit above the FE. That would be at least 3 forces required to explain the motions of the FE sun when the RE sun only requires gravity and the tilt of the earth's axis to explain the same phenomena. I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but...
-
The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights ;D
Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel? ???
Inertia. Unless there is some force acting upon the sun, it'll just sit there.
Or continue travelling its geodesic.
Which would still require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE, moving in a circular path above the FE and expanding and contracting the radius of its orbit above the FE. That would be at least 3 forces required to explain the motions of the FE sun when the RE sun only requires gravity and the tilt of the earth's axis to explain the same phenomena. I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but...
Which means you would have to explain Gravity, you would have to explain why the Earth is tilited as opposed to not, and you would have to explain why the Earth is spinning.
I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but....
-
Which means you would have to explain Gravity, you would have to explain why the Earth is tilited as opposed to not, and you would have to explain why the Earth is spinning.
I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but....
But, it's still only one force that RET would need to explain (gravity) as opposed to however many more forces FET requires.
-
Ok without trolls this time.
Dude, we're all trolls. Maybe not some of the mods, but we're trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling retards who think the Earth is flat, to quote Encyclopedia Dramatica. (sorry I'm late)
-
Ok without trolls this time.
Dude, we're all trolls. Maybe not some of the mods, but we're trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling retards who think the Earth is flat, to quote Encyclopedia Dramatica. (sorry I'm late)
Speak for yourself.
-
Invoking Occam's Razor is tricky business, if you ask me, since it is usually misinterpreted. The ever-vigilant Wikipedia informs us that, strictly speaking, it is a "principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation."
As FET currently stands, I do not see much evidence of "increased explanatory power" over RET. This in itself proves nothing, except that invoking it lightly seems arbitrary.
-
I'm still of an opinion that Occam's Razor favors the Flat Earth model.
From the FEWiki on Occam's Razor:
Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions. The explanation which makes the least number of assumptions is the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory. Several examples exist below.
What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?
What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?
When I walk off the edge of a chair and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton puller particles emanating from the earth which allows them to accelerate my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?
What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?
What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, galactic civilizations, black holes, novas and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light exactly they appear to be?
-
Yes, you have a lot of opinions that are false.
-
Yes, you have a lot of opinions that are false.
Why don't you try keeping your mouth shut next time yo want to say something.
-
Tom, I am certainly not arguing against the fact that FET usually offers a simpler explanation, I'm saying that the simplest explanation is not always correct, according to the Razor, and this seems to be supported by FET's lack of robust explanations for various phenomena. It seems arrogant to presume the form or behavior of anything in the cosmos either way without collecting a lot of verifiable data.
-
Tom, I am certainly not arguing against the fact that FET usually offers a simpler explanation, I'm saying that the simplest explanation is not always correct
Occam's Razor doesn't say that the simplest explanation is always correct. The simplest explanation is the most likely to be correct.
-
Yeah thats why the earth is in the milky way on the western spiral arm and it is 100,000 light year across because it is the simplist explanation for what we are seeing through very powerful telescopes plus mars has been mapped google mars may help you. We orbit around the sun and and to say different is just plain silly, i know you will come back with a bit of a quote and just say its not but the majority of the planet apart from some nutballs think the universe is as we are taught by science and space exploration. To think millions have been spent just to lie to you is pretty pathetic to be honest, things are being discovered all the time and theories change very often one being string theory. You should listen to Michio Kaku you might learn something but then again your cranium must be pretty thick to think otherwise have fun. Oh yeah try looking at nasa j-track as well. I know i'm wasting my time but i am having fun laughing my arse of at your silly little pathetic quotes. P.S The Milky way is orbitting around M32 or Andromedia as this galaxy is far larger than the milky way, and we are caught in its gravitational influence ;D
-
I'm still of an opinion that Occam's Razor favors the Flat Earth model.
From the FEWiki on Occam's Razor:
Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions. The explanation which makes the least number of assumptions is the simplest explanation.
Tom, which is the simpler explanation; that one force (gravity) is responsible for the motions of the earth around the sun and the moon around the earth or that there is one force accelerating the FE (UA), another that suspends the sun, moon (photoelectric suspension?) and other celestial objects, a number of forces that cause the sun and moon to move in an ever expanding and contracting, rising and falling orbit above the north pole, and who knows how many forces responsible for the "celestial gears" of the southern hemiplane?
-
The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights ;D
Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel? ???
Inertia. Unless there is some force acting upon the sun, it'll just sit there.
Or continue travelling its geodesic.
Which would still require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE, moving in a circular path above the FE and expanding and contracting the radius of its orbit above the FE. That would be at least 3 forces required to explain the motions of the FE sun when the RE sun only requires gravity and the tilt of the earth's axis to explain the same phenomena. I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but...
It would not require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE. It would require forces for the sun to plummet towards Earth. Review inertia.
It would also not be moving in a circular path (as I said, its following a straight line - its inertial path - its geodesic...)
As we see, it requires 3 less forces than yours, and as much as I hate to involve ol Ockham in this...
-
It's pointless to invoke the aspect of complexity because either model can claim simplicity with respect to something in particular. I was trying to focus more on Ockham's notion of increased explanatory power in order to compensate for loss of simplicity. Thoughts?
-
Ockham's razor is bunk. Its only use is for engineering; its useful to make simple models and just that. It states nothing about the truth of a matter.
-
It is convenient to dismiss the idea (after invoking it) instead of formulating any sort of argument, isn't it? I will name this tactic the Davis Dismissal. ;)
-
It is convenient to dismiss the idea (after invoking it) instead of formulating any sort of argument, isn't it? I will name this tactic the Davis Dismissal. ;)
... What you are describing is closer to "simpler" explanation. And of course, there's no really[sic] compelling reason that Ockham's Razor need be correct.
Ockham's Razor is bunk. Its just a guiding rule, not a law or a theory or anything else. It has no bearing of truth - its just something some guy thought up and thought it sounded good that gained popularity over the years because its useful for making simple tools.
I've always stated Ockham's razor is bunk. I was merely pointing out the err in the previous post and joking at the use of Ockham's Folly. Apologies for the confusion.
-
Okay, thank you for clarifying. So it's safe to say, then, that Zetetic philosophy maintains that the simplest explanation is indeed always correct?
-
Okay, thank you for clarifying. So it's safe to say, then, that Zetetic philosophy maintains that the simplest explanation is indeed always correct?
I don't think zetetic philosophy says anything on the subject. I however hold it to be universally useful only to the ends of engineering and not towards the search for truth.
Also worth noting is that I'm the founder of the neozetetic movement myself which also holds its own more rich set of philosophical ties than zeteticism. Most notably are the ties to pluralism in z. science and a strong emphasis on postmodern science as well as the right to believe and its import in z. science.
-
The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights ;D
Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel? ???
Inertia. Unless there is some force acting upon the sun, it'll just sit there.
Or continue travelling its geodesic.
Which would still require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE, moving in a circular path above the FE and expanding and contracting the radius of its orbit above the FE. That would be at least 3 forces required to explain the motions of the FE sun when the RE sun only requires gravity and the tilt of the earth's axis to explain the same phenomena. I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but...
It would not require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE. It would require forces for the sun to plummet towards Earth. Review inertia.
It would also not be moving in a circular path (as I said, its following a straight line - its inertial path - its geodesic...)
As we see, it requires 3 less forces than yours, and as much as I hate to involve ol Ockham in this...
I suppose that would depend on whether the UA exists or not. I know that your FE model does not use a UA, but most other FE models do. Perhaps we should wait until the FE scientific (zetetic) community reaches a consensus as to whether or not the UA really exists before we get too deep into debating how many unexplained forces FET needs to account for which are otherwise explained by RE gravity.
-
The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights ;D
Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel? ???
Inertia. Unless there is some force acting upon the sun, it'll just sit there.
Or continue travelling its geodesic.
Which would still require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE, moving in a circular path above the FE and expanding and contracting the radius of its orbit above the FE. That would be at least 3 forces required to explain the motions of the FE sun when the RE sun only requires gravity and the tilt of the earth's axis to explain the same phenomena. I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but...
It would not require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE. It would require forces for the sun to plummet towards Earth. Review inertia.
It would also not be moving in a circular path (as I said, its following a straight line - its inertial path - its geodesic...)
As we see, it requires 3 less forces than yours, and as much as I hate to involve ol Ockham in this...
I suppose that would depend on whether the UA exists or not. I know that your FE model does not use a UA, but most other FE models do. Perhaps we should wait until the FE scientific (zetetic) community reaches a consensus as to whether or not the UA really exists before we get too deep into debating how many unexplained forces FET needs to account for which are otherwise explained by RE gravity.
UA is a force. Or at least the dark energy pushing the UA is, depending on what model.
That said, many other things that are not forces can keep the stars aloft.
But thats fine with me, lets let it lie.
-
The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights ;D
Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel? ???
Inertia. Unless there is some force acting upon the sun, it'll just sit there.
Or continue travelling its geodesic.
Which would still require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE, moving in a circular path above the FE and expanding and contracting the radius of its orbit above the FE. That would be at least 3 forces required to explain the motions of the FE sun when the RE sun only requires gravity and the tilt of the earth's axis to explain the same phenomena. I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but...
It would not require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE. It would require forces for the sun to plummet towards Earth. Review inertia.
It would also not be moving in a circular path (as I said, its following a straight line - its inertial path - its geodesic...)
As we see, it requires 3 less forces than yours, and as much as I hate to involve ol Ockham in this...
so your model has negative three forces? that's got to be an overstatement.
Gravity is not a force in GR, and if you're considering it a force, then that leaves your model with negative two forces.
And in FE, if the Sun has gravity, then it should be going towards the earth, unless it is orbiting it, which it is clearly not. It therefore requires a normal force to keep it up. What you said about its inertial path makes no sense, the inertial path for a body with gravity is toward the other body's center of mass, or in this case the point below it. Circular motion requires an acceleration perpendicular to velocity, what causes this acceleration? gravity? that's one/two forces from two different sources.
At best, the FE model has equal number of forces, 0, caused solely by curved spacetime. At worse 2, the force to keep the sun from going on its inertial path downwards, and the force to keep it in circular motion.
-
The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights ;D
Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel? ???
Inertia. Unless there is some force acting upon the sun, it'll just sit there.
Or continue travelling its geodesic.
Which would still require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE, moving in a circular path above the FE and expanding and contracting the radius of its orbit above the FE. That would be at least 3 forces required to explain the motions of the FE sun when the RE sun only requires gravity and the tilt of the earth's axis to explain the same phenomena. I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but...
It would not require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE. It would require forces for the sun to plummet towards Earth. Review inertia.
It would also not be moving in a circular path (as I said, its following a straight line - its inertial path - its geodesic...)
As we see, it requires 3 less forces than yours, and as much as I hate to involve ol Ockham in this...
so your model has negative three forces? that's got to be an overstatement.
Gravity is not a force in GR, and if you're considering it a force, then that leaves your model with negative two forces.
And in FE, if the Sun has gravity, then it should be going towards the earth, unless it is orbiting it, which it is clearly not. It therefore requires a normal force to keep it up. What you said about its inertial path makes no sense, the inertial path for a body with gravity is toward the other body's center of mass, or in this case the point below it. Circular motion requires an acceleration perpendicular to velocity, what causes this acceleration? gravity? that's one/two forces from two different sources.
At best, the FE model has equal number of forces, 0, caused solely by curved spacetime. At worse 2, the force to keep the sun from going on its inertial path downwards, and the force to keep it in circular motion.
You are correct, apologies for stating the wrong number. I was wrong. That wasn't the point anyways, but thanks for pointing out my obvious error!
-
The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights ;D
Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel? ???
Inertia. Unless there is some force acting upon the sun, it'll just sit there.
Or continue travelling its geodesic.
Which would still require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE, moving in a circular path above the FE and expanding and contracting the radius of its orbit above the FE. That would be at least 3 forces required to explain the motions of the FE sun when the RE sun only requires gravity and the tilt of the earth's axis to explain the same phenomena. I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but...
It would not require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE. It would require forces for the sun to plummet towards Earth. Review inertia.
It would also not be moving in a circular path (as I said, its following a straight line - its inertial path - its geodesic...)
As we see, it requires 3 less forces than yours, and as much as I hate to involve ol Ockham in this...
so your model has negative three forces? that's got to be an overstatement.
Gravity is not a force in GR, and if you're considering it a force, then that leaves your model with negative two forces.
And in FE, if the Sun has gravity, then it should be going towards the earth, unless it is orbiting it, which it is clearly not. It therefore requires a normal force to keep it up. What you said about its inertial path makes no sense, the inertial path for a body with gravity is toward the other body's center of mass, or in this case the point below it. Circular motion requires an acceleration perpendicular to velocity, what causes this acceleration? gravity? that's one/two forces from two different sources.
At best, the FE model has equal number of forces, 0, caused solely by curved spacetime. At worse 2, the force to keep the sun from going on its inertial path downwards, and the force to keep it in circular motion.
You are correct, apologies for stating the wrong number. I was wrong. That wasn't the point anyways, but thanks for pointing out my obvious error!
I don't believe in ockham's razor very much anyways though. There are way too many ways to evaluate a given model, some ways which seem simple to one person, and another that seems complex to another. For example, if you grew up with technology, then the philosophical reasoning behind being Omish might seem too logically twisted. The inverse is also true.
-
Occam's Razor makes sense to me. You begin with a very simple model. Then, in order to accommodate increasingly sophisticated observational data, you must accept the burden of proof in order to deviate from natural simplicity. So long as your increase explanatory power and the ability to more accurately predict phenomena as you decrease simplicity, you don't get cut.
-
Occam's Razor makes sense to me. You begin with a very simple model. Then, in order to accommodate increasingly sophisticated observational data, you must accept the burden of proof in order to deviate from natural simplicity. So long as your increase explanatory power and the ability to more accurately predict phenomena as you decrease simplicity, you don't get cut.
Yes, but defining simple becomes very difficult when we consider model's that still have undiscovered mechanisms. Until either side comes up with a ToE, neither will be simpler than the other.
-
Let me ask something regarding the sun and moon here. Based on FET, they move in changing circles overhead, yes?
Now, FET also states that the Earth is constantly ascending upwards, thus contributing to the effect that the majority of the scientific body, RET, attribute to gravity.
For this to be true, we must also assume that the other celestial bodies are also constantly ascending, and at the same rate. Otherwise, if the Earth were moving upwards and the sun and moon are staying at the same height, the Earth would long ago have crashed into them.
Thus, we can assume that the sun and moon are ascending upwards, and also in fluctuating circles. In other words, a spiral.
We are able to simulate this effect using small scale models, and every attempt I have seen indicates that when spirals move with fluctuating velocity, they do not return to smaller location without outside influence. This is due to inertia, which is easily proven scientific fact. What actually happens is that the spiral continues to get wider, not smaller.
Based on these facts, and looking at your theory and explanation, what force is acting on the sun and moon to cause them to move regardless of inertia back to their original positions, and why is this force not also relevant in explaining functions of the Earth?