The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: 004forever on April 06, 2010, 08:33:48 PM
-
yeah, I know this doesn't really affect the validity of FET, but it's something that's been bothering me.
I find the idea that the entire universe is centered around the Earth to be just incredibly pretentious. And it gets worse when you consider that in FET, no other planet is like the Earth and things on Earth must be treated differently then things in the Universe(heavenly bodies accelerate upwards while things on Earth are pushed up by the Earth).
It's the idea that Earth is somehow this magic special place that really bothers me.
-
I think blindly assuming that the Earth does not hold a central position in the universe is at least as pretentious. And pointing out that another's position is pretentious when one's own position is so pretentious is perhaps most pretentious of all.
I know that this doesn't really affect the validity of RET, but it's something that's always bothered me.
-
I think blindly assuming that the Earth does not hold a central position in the universe is at least as pretentious. And pointing out that another's position is pretentious when one's own position is so pretentious is perhaps most pretentious of all.
I know that this doesn't really affect the validity of RET, but it's something that's always bothered me.
I don't blindly assume. I've looked at the evidence and came to the conclusion that the Earth does not hold a central position in the Universe much like you came to the conclusion that it does.
The difference is, my conclusion doesn't assume that the whole world literally revolves around me.
-
I think blindly assuming that the Earth does not hold a central position in the universe is at least as pretentious. And pointing out that another's position is pretentious when one's own position is so pretentious is perhaps most pretentious of all.
I know that this doesn't really affect the validity of RET, but it's something that's always bothered me.
I don't blindly assume. I've looked at the evidence and came to the conclusion that the Earth does not hold a central position in the Universe much like you came to the conclusion that it does.
The difference is, my conclusion doesn't assume that the whole world literally revolves around me.
There you go, being pretentious again. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously? ???
-
I dunno, conceding that people other than ourselves might have more intelligence, determination, creativity, have made valid, coherent and reliable conclusions regarding the sphericity of the earth seems to show humility, if anything. Creating a slew of forces that for some arcane reason only apply to this type of matter, or behave in very specific unexplainable ways and only for the sole purpose of controlling a single phenomenon (disk shaped moon and sun spotlights, bendy light, shadow thing covering the moon, UA, Ice walls that magically hold in water despite lower density -- or mountains that violate isostatic equilibrium to hold said ice wall -- to name a few) seems very pretentious/arrogant to me. What's the point? To make the universe vastly more complicated than it already is, or call every person that has evidence to the contrary a liar or fraud?
-
I dunno, conceding that people other than ourselves might have more intelligence, determination, creativity, have made valid, coherent and reliable conclusions regarding the sphericity of the earth seems to show humility, if anything.
We're not talking about the sphericity of the Earth.
-
To be fair, at least the FES let us RE heathens invade their site and challenge them. As for pretentious, do I like the sound of my own voice in the written form? Heck I sure do!........... ;D
-
To be fair, at least the FES let us RE heathens invade their site and challenge them. As for pretentious, do I like the sound of my own voice in the written form? Heck I sure do!........... ;D
I suppose the ruse was exposed a long time ago. By attempting to evangelize the FE crowd we are certainly a pretentious lot.
-
To be fair, at least the FES let us RE heathens invade their site and challenge them. As for pretentious, do I like the sound of my own voice in the written form? Heck I sure do!........... ;D
Isn't our tolerance of RE viewpoints basically the opposite of being pretensions? The FES at least to me feels like it doesn't hold it's own views so high that they themselves are not up for debate, certainly not pretensions.
-
Just going by luck of the draw, the center of the Universe has infinitely more chance of not being on Earth than it does of being on Earth.
Do you feel lucky, punk?
-
Just going by luck of the draw, the center of the Universe has infinitely more chance of not being on Earth than it does of being on Earth.
Do you feel lucky, punk?
The odds of any particular planet holding life are slim too.
-
Just going by luck of the draw, the center of the Universe has infinitely more chance of not being on Earth than it does of being on Earth.
Do you feel lucky, punk?
The odds of any particular planet holding life are slim too.
Hardly true. The reasons for existence of life on earth are obvious. Match up these criteria on any other planet and I can almost guarantee that some form of life, even microbial will probably be present. The only problem is that very few planets are in the habitable zone for their respective stars. Planets either have too much energy or too little energy in some form or another. As the sun expands into a red giant, Mars will very likely become habitable for microbial life. Humans could survive there in the long term with only minor tinkering and equipment
Needs only
1) Liquid water
2) Strong magnetic field
3) moderate gravity
4) moderate solar radiation
5) abundant basic organic chemicals --> to create more complex ones for basic life processes.
6) plate tectonics to recycle surface materials.
-
The Copernican Principle is a misuse of mathematical induction and single-handedly lead to the invention of the magic "Dark Energy" as well as thousands of other issues.
-
As John Davis rightly pointed out, modern scientists take the Cosmological Principle and the Copernican Principle as the filter through which they analyze any data or observations that they receive. These two "principles" essentially state that we should assume that we are not in a privileged position in the universe, and that the universe is essentially the same at any point. Needless to say, these are nothing more than preconceived notions, since they are assumed out of hand on a rather philosophical basis. How pretentious is that?
Generally speaking, there are two trends of thought on this topic: the first is to assume that there is no center of the universe. If this is the case, and no single location is "privileged" as being the absolute frame of reference, then we can make any location our reference frame, including earth. It is nothing more than constructing a coordinate system based on where we happen to be, and it is mathematically valid. Thus, Geocentrism is as valid a reference point as any, since everything is equally "unprivileged." Besides, it is only logical to use our actual frame of reference as the center of our coordinate system, calculating the relative motions of the heavenly bodies from our vantage point.
The second idea is that, if there is an actual center or privileged location to our universe, then we're certainly not in it. This is more of an assumption than an idea gleaned from any observational or instrumental data. After all, we're not able to take a look at our position from another vantage point in the universe. In fact, the opposite conclusion may be reached from an observational point of view by the phenomenon of redshift. Redshift may be one of two things: the acceleration of galaxies moving away from us, or gravitational attraction of matter. If it is the first, then we're witnessing these galaxies moving away from us wherever we look. This indicates a central position. The idea of dark matter was proposed to solve this inconvenience to the Copernican Principle; essentially, it is stated that this unknown, unknowable, and indetectible force is causing the expansion of space in such a way that every galaxy is accelerating away from every other galaxy. However, this is simply an hypothesis that was postulated precisely to eliminate this rather un-Copernican dilemma, and is an example of scientists adding unneeded complexity to maintain their own preconceived notions. So much for objectivity based on evidence. If we remove the Copernican Principle and admit the possibility that we may be in a privileged position, there is no longer any need for that mysterious dark matter, and we can take the acceleration of galaxies away from us at face value.
If redshift is due to gravitational attraction, then this would demonstrate that the majority of universal matter is surrounding us in such a way that we're situated in a relatively empty void. A privileged position, in other words.
Given the relativity of motion, the mathematical equivalence of a Geocentric system, and our very limited perspective of the universe, assuming Geocentrism is incorrect out of hand is rather pretentious itself.
-
Just going by luck of the draw, the center of the Universe has infinitely more chance of not being on Earth than it does of being on Earth.
Do you feel lucky, punk?
The odds of any particular planet holding life are slim too.
It's a lot like the lottery. The odds of you winning are somewhere between slim and none but the odds that someone will win are pretty good.
-
Why is thinking that we aren't special pretensions? By assuming we're not special we put ourselves in with everything else, making us insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe. We can then learn about how we work and apply that to the rest of the universe and see if it fits. If it does, then we're not special and simply part of the universe. If it doesn't, then we figure out why.
-
Why is thinking that we aren't special pretensions? By assuming we're not special we put ourselves in with everything else, making us insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe. We can then learn about how we work and apply that to the rest of the universe and see if it fits. If it does, then we're not special and simply part of the universe. If it doesn't, then we figure out why.
Thinking that the earth is special is very pretentious. Granted, earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life. But, then again, how much of the universe have we actually explored?
-
Why is thinking that we aren't special pretensions? By assuming we're not special we put ourselves in with everything else, making us insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe. We can then learn about how we work and apply that to the rest of the universe and see if it fits. If it does, then we're not special and simply part of the universe. If it doesn't, then we figure out why.
Thinking that the earth is special is very pretentious. Granted, earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life. But, then again, how much of the universe have we actually explored?
Correction:
Earth is the only planet WE know of that harbors life.
-
Why is thinking that we aren't special pretensions? By assuming we're not special we put ourselves in with everything else, making us insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe. We can then learn about how we work and apply that to the rest of the universe and see if it fits. If it does, then we're not special and simply part of the universe. If it doesn't, then we figure out why.
Thinking that the earth is special is very pretentious. Granted, earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life. But, then again, how much of the universe have we actually explored?
Correction:
Earth is the only planet WE know of that harbors life.
I think that's intrinsically implied. We don't know of others and therefore can't say anything of their knowledge. The "we" is redundant.
-
Why is thinking that we aren't special pretensions? By assuming we're not special we put ourselves in with everything else, making us insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe. We can then learn about how we work and apply that to the rest of the universe and see if it fits. If it does, then we're not special and simply part of the universe. If it doesn't, then we figure out why.
Thinking that the earth is special is very pretentious. Granted, earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life. But, then again, how much of the universe have we actually explored?
You assume that there is a universe to explore.
-
Why is thinking that we aren't special pretensions? By assuming we're not special we put ourselves in with everything else, making us insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe. We can then learn about how we work and apply that to the rest of the universe and see if it fits. If it does, then we're not special and simply part of the universe. If it doesn't, then we figure out why.
Thinking that the earth is special is very pretentious. Granted, earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life. But, then again, how much of the universe have we actually explored?
You assume that there is a universe to explore.
You assume there isn't.
-
Why is thinking that we aren't special pretensions? By assuming we're not special we put ourselves in with everything else, making us insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe. We can then learn about how we work and apply that to the rest of the universe and see if it fits. If it does, then we're not special and simply part of the universe. If it doesn't, then we figure out why.
Thinking that the earth is special is very pretentious. Granted, earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life. But, then again, how much of the universe have we actually explored?
You assume that there is a universe to explore.
I would think that simply looking up into the sky would prove that the Universe exists. It doesn't prove in what form, but it proves there is something in the sky. And if there is only the Earth, then the Earth is our Universe.
-
Why is thinking that we aren't special pretensions? By assuming we're not special we put ourselves in with everything else, making us insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe. We can then learn about how we work and apply that to the rest of the universe and see if it fits. If it does, then we're not special and simply part of the universe. If it doesn't, then we figure out why.
Thinking that the earth is special is very pretentious. Granted, earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life. But, then again, how much of the universe have we actually explored?
You assume that there is a universe to explore.
The FE doesn't exist within a universe? ??? :o
-
You assume that there is a universe to explore.
Why couldn't there be? Yeah, sustained space flight is impossible in your model, but we could explore part of it.
-
Why is thinking that we aren't special pretensions? By assuming we're not special we put ourselves in with everything else, making us insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe. We can then learn about how we work and apply that to the rest of the universe and see if it fits. If it does, then we're not special and simply part of the universe. If it doesn't, then we figure out why.
Thinking that the earth is special is very pretentious. Granted, earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life. But, then again, how much of the universe have we actually explored?
You assume that there is a universe to explore.
The universe is simply the name given to everything we know to exist. Please stop trolling, Tom (unless you are really that stupid, in which case I apologise).
-
From what I've gathered, Tom is not trolling. He honestly believes everything he states, whether it is batshit crazy or not. Also, don't try to present him with facts or reason, he'll ignore it and tell you to post real data because all data presented is false.
-
Why is thinking that we aren't special pretensions? By assuming we're not special we put ourselves in with everything else, making us insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe. We can then learn about how we work and apply that to the rest of the universe and see if it fits. If it does, then we're not special and simply part of the universe. If it doesn't, then we figure out why.
Thinking that the earth is special is very pretentious. Granted, earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life. But, then again, how much of the universe have we actually explored?
You assume that there is a universe to explore.
The FE doesn't exist within a universe? ??? :o
As the planets are relatively small, and the stars are nothing more than points of light, I wouldn't say that there's much to explore.
-
Why is thinking that we aren't special pretensions? By assuming we're not special we put ourselves in with everything else, making us insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe. We can then learn about how we work and apply that to the rest of the universe and see if it fits. If it does, then we're not special and simply part of the universe. If it doesn't, then we figure out why.
Thinking that the earth is special is very pretentious. Granted, earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life. But, then again, how much of the universe have we actually explored?
You assume that there is a universe to explore.
The FE doesn't exist within a universe? ??? :o
As the planets are relatively small, and the stars are nothing more than points of light, I wouldn't say that there's much to explore.
(As this is something you often do...)
Proof?
If you tell me read ENAG,atleast direct me to the specfic passage(s).
-
Why is thinking that we aren't special pretensions? By assuming we're not special we put ourselves in with everything else, making us insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe. We can then learn about how we work and apply that to the rest of the universe and see if it fits. If it does, then we're not special and simply part of the universe. If it doesn't, then we figure out why.
Thinking that the earth is special is very pretentious. Granted, earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life. But, then again, how much of the universe have we actually explored?
You assume that there is a universe to explore.
The FE doesn't exist within a universe? ??? :o
As the planets are relatively small, and the stars are nothing more than points of light, I wouldn't say that there's much to explore.
Relative to what?
Stars are nothing more than points of light? No proof to back that up? Ok then.
-
Why is thinking that we aren't special pretensions? By assuming we're not special we put ourselves in with everything else, making us insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe. We can then learn about how we work and apply that to the rest of the universe and see if it fits. If it does, then we're not special and simply part of the universe. If it doesn't, then we figure out why.
Thinking that the earth is special is very pretentious. Granted, earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life. But, then again, how much of the universe have we actually explored?
You assume that there is a universe to explore.
The FE doesn't exist within a universe? ??? :o
As the planets are relatively small, and the stars are nothing more than points of light, I wouldn't say that there's much to explore.
How can you know for sure that there isn't much to explore unless you try?
-
Redshift may be one of two things: the acceleration of galaxies moving away from us, or gravitational attraction of matter. If it is the first, then we're witnessing these galaxies moving away from us wherever we look. This indicates a central position. The idea of dark matter was proposed to solve this inconvenience to the Copernican Principle; essentially, it is stated that this unknown, unknowable, and indetectible force is causing the expansion of space in such a way that every galaxy is accelerating away from every other galaxy. However, this is simply an hypothesis that was postulated precisely to eliminate this rather un-Copernican dilemma, and is an example of scientists adding unneeded complexity to maintain their own preconceived notions. So much for objectivity based on evidence. If we remove the Copernican Principle and admit the possibility that we may be in a privileged position, there is no longer any need for that mysterious dark matter, and we can take the acceleration of galaxies away from us at face value.
If redshift is due to gravitational attraction, then this would demonstrate that the majority of universal matter is surrounding us in such a way that we're situated in a relatively empty void. A privileged position, in other words.
Red shift has no need for dark matter to explain it. Your getting your facts wrong. Red shift is part of the evidence for the Big Bang, and that is backed up by the microwave background radiation. Dark matter was invented to account for inconsistencies between what is observed in the rotation of galaxies and what theories predicted for their estimated mass. Completely different. Dark matter and dark energy, if they exist, will affect the expansion rate and hence the red shift, but its not the cause of it.
The alternative theory that explains the mass discrepancy without dark matter is a form of variable gravity theory. Personally I prefer this because its less clunky and doesnt rely on some particles which seem to influence everything except scientists instruments.
-
Why is thinking that we aren't special pretensions? By assuming we're not special we put ourselves in with everything else, making us insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe. We can then learn about how we work and apply that to the rest of the universe and see if it fits. If it does, then we're not special and simply part of the universe. If it doesn't, then we figure out why.
Thinking that the earth is special is very pretentious. Granted, earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life. But, then again, how much of the universe have we actually explored?
You assume that there is a universe to explore.
The FE doesn't exist within a universe? ??? :o
As the planets are relatively small, and the stars are nothing more than points of light, I wouldn't say that there's much to explore.
How can you know for sure that there isn't much to explore unless you try?
I read Earth Not a Globe.
-
I read Earth Not a Globe.
That's about the only book you have read, right?
Nice to see you ignore the rest of the entire library.
-
I read Earth Not a Globe.
That's about the only book you have read, right?
Nice to see you ignore the rest of the entire library.
I don't think he can quote anything else without being wrong.
-
I read Earth Not a Globe.
I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. What's your point?
-
I read Earth Not a Globe.
I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. What's your point?
"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is Fiction. "Earth Not a Globe" is Non-Fiction.
-
I read Earth Not a Globe.
I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. What's your point?
"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is Fiction. "Earth Not a Globe" is Non-Fiction.
That hardly makes someting worthy of study or being regard as true. I read Mein Kampf.... I'm not going to go kill Jews though. Why? Because its utter bollocks - just like your precious book.... which is, funny enough, registered under "Occult" on Amazon.com.
-
I read Earth Not a Globe.
I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. What's your point?
"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is Fiction. "Earth Not a Globe" is Non-Fiction.
Fixed.
-
I read Earth Not a Globe.
I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. What's your point?
"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is Fiction. "Earth Not a Globe" is Non-Fiction.
Many would disagree on both points. Are all those who put faith in HGttG idiots? And are all those who believe in ENaG genius? Your posts would cause many to disagree.
-
I love how Tom questions are scientific development by demanding empirical proof from EVERY person that bleives in them and trie to make a point about not believing in ANYTING without emperical evidence as all of the scientistific communtiy is stupid or corrupt and then is a blatant and idiotic show of massive hypocrisy just blindly bases all his claims on ENAG, so the guy who wrote it isn't corrupt but Newton and Hawking was/is.
-
Just because ENaG is supposed to be non-fiction, that doesn't mean that it's correct.
-
Just because ENaG is supposed to be non-fiction, that doesn't mean that it's correct.
By plane trigonometry, in special connection with carefully measured base lines, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has demonstrated and placed beyond all power of doubt that the sun, moon, stars, and galaxies are all within a distance of a few thousand miles from the surface of the earth. Therefore they are very small objects. Therefore not worlds. Therefore not light years across or from each other.
-
Just because ENaG is supposed to be non-fiction, that doesn't mean that it's correct.
By plane trigonometry, in special connection with carefully measured base lines, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has demonstrated and placed beyond all power of doubt that the sun, moon, stars, and galaxies are all within a distance of a few thousand miles from the surface of the earth. Therefore they are very small objects. Therefore not worlds. Therefore not light years across or from each other.
No he hasn't. He assumed the shape of the earth for his measurements. They would be markedly different if he had assumed a RE.
-
Just because ENaG is supposed to be non-fiction, that doesn't mean that it's correct.
By plane trigonometry, in special connection with carefully measured base lines, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has demonstrated and placed beyond all power of doubt that the sun, moon, stars, and galaxies are all within a distance of a few thousand miles from the surface of the earth. Therefore they are very small objects. Therefore not worlds. Therefore not light years across or from each other.
No he hasn't. He assumed the shape of the earth for his measurements. They would be markedly different if he had assumed a RE.
The shape of the earth is proven flat in the first few chapters of Earth Not a Globe.
-
Just because ENaG is supposed to be non-fiction, that doesn't mean that it's correct.
By plane trigonometry, in special connection with carefully measured base lines, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has demonstrated and placed beyond all power of doubt that the sun, moon, stars, and galaxies are all within a distance of a few thousand miles from the surface of the earth. Therefore they are very small objects. Therefore not worlds. Therefore not light years across or from each other.
No he hasn't. He assumed the shape of the earth for his measurements. They would be markedly different if he had assumed a RE.
The shape of the earth is proven flat in the first few chapters of Earth Not a Globe.
By lying about ship observations with broken telescopes? Oh, my bad, sorry go ahead.
-
By lying about ship observations with broken telescopes? Oh, my bad, sorry go ahead.
Ship observations aren't mentioned within the first few chapters. The first few chapters are on the convexity experiments which demonstrates that the earth's surface is not curved as popularly assumed.
-
Just because ENaG is supposed to be non-fiction, that doesn't mean that it's correct.
By plane trigonometry, in special connection with carefully measured base lines, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has demonstrated and placed beyond all power of doubt that the sun, moon, stars, and galaxies are all within a distance of a few thousand miles from the surface of the earth. Therefore they are very small objects. Therefore not worlds. Therefore not light years across or from each other.
You know, I'm no expert but...
Wouldn't an object that's really small but close up look the same and give the same results as a very very large object very far away?
Something about relative size.
-
Just because ENaG is supposed to be non-fiction, that doesn't mean that it's correct.
By plane trigonometry, in special connection with carefully measured base lines, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has demonstrated and placed beyond all power of doubt that the sun, moon, stars, and galaxies are all within a distance of a few thousand miles from the surface of the earth. Therefore they are very small objects. Therefore not worlds. Therefore not light years across or from each other.
You know, I'm no expert but...
Wouldn't an object that's really small but close up look the same and give the same results as a very very large object very far away?
Something about relative size.
Something about astronomical parallax on a plane.
Read more Earth Not a Globe.
-
Just because ENaG is supposed to be non-fiction, that doesn't mean that it's correct.
By plane trigonometry, in special connection with carefully measured base lines, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has demonstrated and placed beyond all power of doubt that the sun, moon, stars, and galaxies are all within a distance of a few thousand miles from the surface of the earth. Therefore they are very small objects. Therefore not worlds. Therefore not light years across or from each other.
You know, I'm no expert but...
Wouldn't an object that's really small but close up look the same and give the same results as a very very large object very far away?
Something about relative size.
Something about astronomical parallax on a plane.
Read more Earth Not a Globe.
Yeah...
I'm reading up on Parallax. It's used to show objects moving in relation to other objects. So for example, an object closer to you moves across your frame of reference faster than an object farther away. My by measuring the difference in apparent speed between those two objects we can calculate it's distance.
It probably helps that I prefer to learn about parallax than have a philosopher tell me about it in a book he wrote.
-
By lying about ship observations with broken telescopes? Oh, my bad, sorry go ahead.
Ship observations aren't mentioned within the first few chapters. The first few chapters are on the convexity experiments which demonstrates that the earth's surface is not curved as popularly assumed.
Yes, experiments that can be explained by atmospheric refractive phenomena. Experiments that have been recreated with mixed results. Experiments that have not been properly scientifically documented.
-
Red shift has no need for dark matter to explain it. Your getting your facts wrong. Red shift is part of the evidence for the Big Bang, and that is backed up by the microwave background radiation. Dark matter was invented to account for inconsistencies between what is observed in the rotation of galaxies and what theories predicted for their estimated mass. Completely different. Dark matter and dark energy, if they exist, will affect the expansion rate and hence the red shift, but its not the cause of it.
The alternative theory that explains the mass discrepancy without dark matter is a form of variable gravity theory. Personally I prefer this because its less clunky and doesnt rely on some particles which seem to influence everything except scientists instruments.
It seems to me that the observation the acceleration of all other galaxies away from us posed a bit of a problem, in that it would point to our being in a privileged position. It was thus explained that this acceleration would be observed on any other galaxy, as well. Thus, galaxies were not accelerating away from a central point, of which we were either in or very close to; rather, they were accelerating away from every other galaxy due to the expansion of space itself. This force of spatial expansion was posited as an unseen and unobservable force, termed dark energy. The problem is that this was nothing more than a pure assumption, not grounded in observation or in collected data. It was required to maintain the preconceived notions of Copernicanism, thus adding complexity into what would otherwise be a very simple conclusion: a dethronement of acentrism.
Not to mention other problems for the Copernican establishment, such as the quasar distribution problem in which observable quasars formed 57 concentric shells around our position. That's what happens when people let their personal philosophy cloud their reason: they accept all manner of false abstractions and deny their own commonsense experience.
Luckily, certain scientists are now questioning the dogmas of the establishment and are arriving at the same conclusion: perhaps the Copernican principle is irrational. For instance, these scientists questioning the need for dark energy and our privileged position: http://www.physorg.com/news141617439.html
-
Red shift has no need for dark matter to explain it. Your getting your facts wrong. Red shift is part of the evidence for the Big Bang, and that is backed up by the microwave background radiation. Dark matter was invented to account for inconsistencies between what is observed in the rotation of galaxies and what theories predicted for their estimated mass. Completely different. Dark matter and dark energy, if they exist, will affect the expansion rate and hence the red shift, but its not the cause of it.
The alternative theory that explains the mass discrepancy without dark matter is a form of variable gravity theory. Personally I prefer this because its less clunky and doesnt rely on some particles which seem to influence everything except scientists instruments.
It seems to me that the observation the acceleration of all other galaxies away from us posed a bit of a problem, in that it would point to our being in a privileged position. It was thus explained that this acceleration would be observed on any other galaxy, as well. Thus, galaxies were not accelerating away from a central point, of which we were either in or very close to; rather, they were accelerating away from every other galaxy due to the expansion of space itself. This force of spatial expansion was posited as an unseen and unobservable force, termed dark energy. The problem is that this was nothing more than a pure assumption, not grounded in observation or in collected data. It was required to maintain the preconceived notions of Copernicanism, thus adding complexity into what would otherwise be a very simple conclusion: a dethronement of acentrism.
Not to mention other problems for the Copernican establishment, such as the quasar distribution problem in which observable quasars formed 57 concentric shells around our position. That's what happens when people let their personal philosophy cloud their reason: they accept all manner of false abstractions and deny their own commonsense experience.
Luckily, certain scientists are now questioning the dogmas of the establishment and are arriving at the same conclusion: perhaps the Copernican principle is irrational. For instance, these scientists questioning the need for dark energy and our privileged position: http://www.physorg.com/news141617439.html
My understanding is that everything is moving away from everything else and not away from a specific point. I also understand that it's moving faster than the speed of light. The only way that could happen is if space was expanding instead of the physical matter moving.
That's what happens when people let their personal philosophy cloud their reason: they accept all manner of false abstractions and deny their own commonsense experience.
Just wanna quote this because when I read the FAQ and Wiki, this is what I think.
-
By lying about ship observations with broken telescopes? Oh, my bad, sorry go ahead.
Ship observations aren't mentioned within the first few chapters. The first few chapters are on the convexity experiments which demonstrates that the earth's surface is not curved as popularly assumed.
I was reading those chapters and my first thought was "wouldn't you get a different result assuming bendy light was true?"
-
By lying about ship observations with broken telescopes? Oh, my bad, sorry go ahead.
Ship observations aren't mentioned within the first few chapters. The first few chapters are on the convexity experiments which demonstrates that the earth's surface is not curved as popularly assumed.
I was reading those chapters and my first thought was "wouldn't you get a different result assuming bendy light was true?"
ENAG says that light travels in straight lines.
-
By lying about ship observations with broken telescopes? Oh, my bad, sorry go ahead.
Ship observations aren't mentioned within the first few chapters. The first few chapters are on the convexity experiments which demonstrates that the earth's surface is not curved as popularly assumed.
I was reading those chapters and my first thought was "wouldn't you get a different result assuming bendy light was true?"
ENAG says that light travels in straight lines.
Where is your data?
-
By lying about ship observations with broken telescopes? Oh, my bad, sorry go ahead.
Ship observations aren't mentioned within the first few chapters. The first few chapters are on the convexity experiments which demonstrates that the earth's surface is not curved as popularly assumed.
I was reading those chapters and my first thought was "wouldn't you get a different result assuming bendy light was true?"
ENAG says that light travels in straight lines.
Isn't that in direct contradiction with the EA?
As quoted from the FAQ..
EA: Electromagnetic Acceleration, a theory which states that light bends, creating an optical illusion to the observer. (general model)
-
By lying about ship observations with broken telescopes? Oh, my bad, sorry go ahead.
Ship observations aren't mentioned within the first few chapters. The first few chapters are on the convexity experiments which demonstrates that the earth's surface is not curved as popularly assumed.
I was reading those chapters and my first thought was "wouldn't you get a different result assuming bendy light was true?"
ENAG says that light travels in straight lines.
Isn't that in direct contradiction with the EA?
As quoted from the FAQ..
EA: Electromagnetic Acceleration, a theory which states that light bends, creating an optical illusion to the observer. (general model)
EA isn't part of the classic model.
-
Isn't EA or bendy light required to explain why there is a horizon in FET?
-
Isn't EA or bendy light required to explain why there is a horizon in FET?
No. EA/bendy light is required to explain why the flat earth looks round (sunken ship observations, etc.).
-
Isn't EA or bendy light required to explain why there is a horizon in FET?
No. EA/bendy light is required to explain why the flat earth looks round (sunken ship observations, etc.).
Actually, it isn't.
Read Earth Not a Globe.
-
Isn't EA or bendy light required to explain why there is a horizon in FET?
No. EA/bendy light is required to explain why the flat earth looks round (sunken ship observations, etc.).
Actually, it isn't.
Read Earth Not a Globe.
Perspective doesn't explain why the Sun hits the horizon at such a large size.
-
Isn't EA or bendy light required to explain why there is a horizon in FET?
No. EA/bendy light is required to explain why the flat earth looks round (sunken ship observations, etc.).
Actually, it isn't.
Read Earth Not a Globe.
Perspective doesn't explain why the Sun hits the horizon at such a large size.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Magnification+of+the+Sun+at+Sunset
-
Isn't EA or bendy light required to explain why there is a horizon in FET?
No. EA/bendy light is required to explain why the flat earth looks round (sunken ship observations, etc.).
Actually, it isn't.
Read Earth Not a Globe.
Perspective doesn't explain why the Sun hits the horizon at such a large size.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Magnification+of+the+Sun+at+Sunset
Tom, perhaps you missed the part where perspective doesn't explain why the sun hits the horizon in the first place. Perspective will never allow an object above the horizon to appear to sink below the horizon, regardless of its size.
-
Tom, perhaps you missed the part where perspective doesn't explain why the sun hits the horizon in the first place. Perspective will never allow an object above the horizon to appear to sink below the horizon, regardless of its size.
In Earth Not a Globe we learn that the Vanishing Point in perspective is a finite distance away from the observer, and not an infinite distance away as taught in art school.
Please read Earth Not a Globe and grasp the material rather than asking the same dull questions year after year.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Setting+of+the+Sun
-
Tom, perhaps you missed the part where perspective doesn't explain why the sun hits the horizon in the first place. Perspective will never allow an object above the horizon to appear to sink below the horizon, regardless of its size.
In Earth Not a Globe we learn that the Vanishing Point in perspective is a finite distance away from the observer, and not an infinite distance away as taught in art school.
Please read Earth Not a Globe and grasp the material rather than asking the same dull questions year after year.
I've read the appropriate sections of ENaG. Rowbotham is wrong in his interpretation of the vanishing point as well. How can the sun appear to set below the horizon due to the vanishing point when the atmosphere makes the sun appear bigger? Seems like a contradiction to me.
When I watch the sun set below the horizon, I'm not watching the bottom part of the sun fade away as the sun recedes into the distance, I'm watching the sun move downwards. Frankly, bendy light explains this phenomenon better than perspective does.
Oh, BTW, perspective doesn't explain why the sun rises almost exactly due east and almost exactly 12 hours later, set almost exactly due west to observers all over the world on the days of the equinox. Perhaps you can refer me to Rowbotham's explanation for that one too while you're at it.
-
Please read Earth Not a Globe
*screams and screams and screams until he's sick*
-
Tom, perhaps you missed the part where perspective doesn't explain why the sun hits the horizon in the first place. Perspective will never allow an object above the horizon to appear to sink below the horizon, regardless of its size.
In Earth Not a Globe we learn that the Vanishing Point in perspective is a finite distance away from the observer, and not an infinite distance away as taught in art school.
Please read Earth Not a Globe and graspAccept the material as Fact rather than asking the same dull questions year after year.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Setting+of+the+Sun
Fixed.
-
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Magnification+of+the+Sun+at+Sunset
That's actually caused by the lens on the camera.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Setting+of+the+Sun
Please label the points in your diagrams to make it clear on what part I'm meant to correct you on.
-
What's Flat Earth Theory Theory?
-
What's Flat Earth Theory Theory?
Redundant. What's your point?
-
What's Flat Earth Theory Theory?
Redundant. What's your point?
Redundant. How was your weekend?
-
What's Flat Earth Theory Theory?
Redundant. What's your point?
Redundant. How was your weekend?
Not too bad. Went to see Trans-Siberian Orchestra's long over due Beethoven's Last Night show.
-
What's Flat Earth Theory Theory?
Redundant. What's your point?
Redundant. How was your weekend?
Not too bad. Went to see Trans-Siberian Orchestra's long over due Beethoven's Last Night show.
Really? How was it.
-
There's a great kind of lounging area down below if you two feel like chatting.
>:(
-
Tom, perhaps you missed the part where perspective doesn't explain why the sun hits the horizon in the first place. Perspective will never allow an object above the horizon to appear to sink below the horizon, regardless of its size.
In Earth Not a Globe we learn that the Vanishing Point in perspective is a finite distance away from the observer, and not an infinite distance away as taught in art school.
Please read Earth Not a Globe and grasp the material rather than asking the same dull questions year after year.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Setting+of+the+Sun
Rowbotham never proved his understanding of perspective. He gave a simplistic reason designed to confuse people, but which supported his later arguments. Nowhere does he prove that his use of perspective is correct.
-
I don't know why the sun is still being discussed. Nobody has explained how it is able to shine light in only specific directions yet.
-
I don't know why the sun is still being discussed. Nobody has explained how it is able to shine light in only specific directions yet.
Pfft.
No one worries about little details like that.
-
I find the idea that the entire universe is centered around the Earth to be just incredibly pretentious. And it gets worse when you consider that in FET, no other planet is like the Earth and things on Earth must be treated differently then things in the Universe(heavenly bodies accelerate upwards while things on Earth are pushed up by the Earth).
The Earth is not a planet.
-
Yea yea yea. Are you flat earthers idiots?
Your beliefs are all outwardly pretentious.
Oh yes, of COURSE the Earth must be the center of the universe. Because you totally have proof to support that.
What stupidly PRETENTIOUS you all are.
Pics or it didn't happen bitches ;]
-
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. One should always consider hoity-toitiness when determining the earth's place in the cosmos.
-
Yea yea yea. Are you flat earthers idiots?
Your beliefs are all outwardly pretentious.
Oh yes, of COURSE the Earth must be the center of the universe. Because you totally have proof to support that.
What stupidly PRETENTIOUS you all are.
Pics or it didn't happen bitches ;]
I miss AR. :(
-
Tom, you so sleep with that book under your pillow :P
Dang it FE'rs I want someone to get up there and prove it !!!
One other question - What is the purpose/how and or why is our place in ze known 'Universe' so different from everywhere else ? Does this mean all FE'rs believe a God created our space differently ? Or do some believe its a random anomally ?
I saw vague comments about this in the FAQ, but I don't think it was answered directly.
I'm just not sure how a flat earth is possible given the nature of the REST of space, unless it was designed specifically that way ( being that apparantly the FE has different laws of physics active).
-
I find the idea that the entire universe is centered around the Earth to be just incredibly pretentious. And it gets worse when you consider that in FET, no other planet is like the Earth and things on Earth must be treated differently then things in the Universe(heavenly bodies accelerate upwards while things on Earth are pushed up by the Earth).
The Earth is not a planet.
What is your definition of a planet and can you prove the Earth does not fit that definition?
-
Yea yea yea. Are you flat earthers idiots?
Your beliefs are all outwardly pretentious.
Oh yes, of COURSE the Earth must be the center of the universe. Because you totally have proof to support that.
What stupidly PRETENTIOUS you all are.
Pics or it didn't happen bitches ;]
Because an idea is pretentious says nothing of its validity.
RE is even more pretentious. They claim that the universe is uniform based on what they can see from a very small area (themselves.) Imagine stating that since you have brown hair every person must have brown hair.
Silliness!
-
Imagine stating that since your area of vision shows you a flat ground, the rest of the earth must be too!
Zing!
-
Imagine stating that since your area of vision shows you a flat ground, the rest of the earth must be too!
Zing!
I agree, thats a ridiculous argument.
-
RE is even more pretentious. They claim that the universe is uniform based on what they can see from a very small area (themselves.)
Actually, they don't. Conspiracy astronomers have mapped the cosmic background radiation and found slight variations in the temperature of the universe. It doesn't look very uniform to me.
(http://www.redorbit.com/modules/reflib/article_images/6_b8c17099b12221682a99aa9cd0dd4569.jpg)
-
RE is even more pretentious. They claim that the universe is uniform based on what they can see from a very small area (themselves.)
Actually, they don't. Conspiracy astronomers have mapped the cosmic background radiation and found slight variations in the temperature of the universe. It doesn't look very uniform to me.
(http://www.redorbit.com/modules/reflib/article_images/6_b8c17099b12221682a99aa9cd0dd4569.jpg)
I think the key word there is slight.
-
RE is even more pretentious. They claim that the universe is uniform based on what they can see from a very small area (themselves.)
Actually, they don't. Conspiracy astronomers have mapped the cosmic background radiation and found slight variations in the temperature of the universe. It doesn't look very uniform to me.
(http://www.redorbit.com/modules/reflib/article_images/6_b8c17099b12221682a99aa9cd0dd4569.jpg)
I think the key word there is slight.
Slight variations can make a significant difference at cosmic scales.
-
Yea yea yea. Are you flat earthers idiots?
Your beliefs are all outwardly pretentious.
Oh yes, of COURSE the Earth must be the center of the universe. Because you totally have proof to support that.
What stupidly PRETENTIOUS you all are.
Pics or it didn't happen bitches ;]
Because an idea is pretentious says nothing of its validity.
RE is even more pretentious. They claim that the universe is uniform based on what they can see from a very small area (themselves.) Imagine stating that since you have brown hair every person must have brown hair.
Silliness!
No.
That would be if we assumed Every planet had the same properties of the Earth.
A better analogy would be:
That's like assuming that almost everyone has the same basic shape as you (ie. humanoid).
This is why I hate that "Snakes are not dogs and Cats" argument. It doesn't work for the context because the context is basic properties and not specific function.