The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Elitefusion on December 08, 2011, 05:53:26 PM

Title: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: Elitefusion on December 08, 2011, 05:53:26 PM
What observable phenomena does the RE model fail to explain that the FE model explains sufficiently?
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: Tausami on December 08, 2011, 06:04:06 PM
What observable phenomena does the RE model fail to explain that the FE model explains sufficiently?

The fact that the Earth is round, as determined by the Bedford Level Experiment.
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: Rushy on December 08, 2011, 06:11:35 PM
The Bedford Level Experiment contradicts electromagnetic acceleration. I suggest you dump Bedford Level before you dump EA.


To answer the original question, it really doesn't. The only real difference between RET and FET is on a flat earth orbit/space travel is not possible. Basically one has a conspiracy, one doesn't.
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: Tausami on December 08, 2011, 06:16:31 PM
The Bedford Level Experiment contradicts electromagnetic acceleration. I suggest you dump Bedford Level before you dump EA.


To answer the original question, it really doesn't. The only real difference between RET and FET is on a flat earth orbit/space travel is not possible. Basically one has a conspiracy, one doesn't.

I don't believe in EA. I go by Bishop's model of how that works.
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: Rushy on December 08, 2011, 06:20:13 PM
The Bedford Level Experiment contradicts electromagnetic acceleration. I suggest you dump Bedford Level before you dump EA.


To answer the original question, it really doesn't. The only real difference between RET and FET is on a flat earth orbit/space travel is not possible. Basically one has a conspiracy, one doesn't.

I don't believe in EA. I go by Bishop's model of how that works.

Reductio ad Bishopum - the logical fallacy of believing anything Tom Bishop says.
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: John Davis on December 08, 2011, 08:02:01 PM
What observable phenomena does the RE model fail to explain that the FE model explains sufficiently?
Gravitational pull does not decrease with altitude if you take into account local geography and the gravitational pull of the heavens.
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: Elitefusion on December 08, 2011, 08:24:18 PM
Gravity does decrease with altitude, though. Which is why orbit is possible (in the RE model).
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: jraffield1 on December 08, 2011, 11:05:09 PM
What observable phenomena does the RE model fail to explain that the FE model explains sufficiently?
Gravitational pull does not decrease with altitude if you take into account local geography and the gravitational pull of the heavens.

The "heavens" are in constant motion, the differences in gravity are stationary. Therefore the heavens can't possibly be the cause of the reduction.
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: momentia on December 09, 2011, 01:07:08 AM
What observable phenomena does the RE model fail to explain that the FE model explains sufficiently?
Gravitational pull does not decrease with altitude if you take into account local geography and the gravitational pull of the heavens.

What does "taking into account" mean?
Are you subtracting the gravitational pull of the heavens from your readings or leaving them in?

i.e. if you take a sensitive gravimeter and read it at a given height versus a height a meter higher, will it ever read the same or higher magnitude of g than at the lower height?
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: iwanttobelieve on December 09, 2011, 06:48:02 AM
Gravity does decrease with altitude, though. Which is why orbit is possible (in the RE model).


orbit is very possible in disc earth thoery as well.
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: markjo on December 09, 2011, 06:58:45 AM
orbit is very possible in disc earth thoery as well.

Except for the fact that you need something to orbit around. 
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: iwanttobelieve on December 09, 2011, 07:42:11 AM
you are orbiting around the disc, the same way the sun, stars and planets do.
if these celestial bodies caught in the wake of the UA can orbit, so can a chunck of metal.
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: markjo on December 09, 2011, 07:45:49 AM
Actually, the sun and moon orbit above the disc, not around it.  The magical, musical question of the day is; what do the FE sun and moon orbit around?
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: PizzaPlanet on December 09, 2011, 08:59:43 AM
Actually, the sun and moon orbit above the disc, not around it.  The magical, musical question of the day is; what do the FE sun and moon orbit around?
The centre of the universe.
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: iwanttobelieve on December 09, 2011, 09:45:40 AM
Actually, the sun and moon orbit above the disc, not around it.  The magical, musical question of the day is; what do the FE sun and moon orbit around?


they do both, they circle above the disc.
this is also a version of "orbit"
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 09, 2011, 04:50:24 PM
Actually, the sun and moon orbit above the disc, not around it.  The magical, musical question of the day is; what do the FE sun and moon orbit around?
The centre of the universe.

Which should be the Sun according to you.

Wrong again (but you're used to being wrong).
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: markjo on December 09, 2011, 07:44:41 PM
Actually, the sun and moon orbit above the disc, not around it.  The magical, musical question of the day is; what do the FE sun and moon orbit around?
The centre of the universe.

Which should be the Sun according to you.

Wrong again (but you're used to being wrong).

No, in FET it would be the north geographic pole.
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: Parsifal on December 10, 2011, 05:30:52 AM
Gravity does decrease with altitude, though. Which is why orbit is possible (in the RE model).

Gravity decreasing with altitude is entirely unrelated to the reason why orbit is possible. Please gain an understanding of your own model before attempting to explain it to others.
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 10, 2011, 05:37:17 AM
Gravity does decrease with altitude, though. Which is why orbit is possible (in the RE model).

Gravity decreasing with altitude is entirely unrelated to the reason why orbit is possible. Please gain an understanding of your own model before attempting to explain it to others.

It's just something which has to be accounted for (even with geostationary satellites).
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: Parsifal on December 10, 2011, 05:41:59 AM
Gravity does decrease with altitude, though. Which is why orbit is possible (in the RE model).

Gravity decreasing with altitude is entirely unrelated to the reason why orbit is possible. Please gain an understanding of your own model before attempting to explain it to others.

It's just something which has to be accounted for (even with geostationary satellites).

Correct, but irrelevant.
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: ClockTower on December 10, 2011, 06:21:30 AM
Gravity does decrease with altitude, though. Which is why orbit is possible (in the RE model).

Gravity decreasing with altitude is entirely unrelated to the reason why orbit is possible. Please gain an understanding of your own model before attempting to explain it to others.

It's just something which has to be accounted for (even with geostationary satellites).

Correct, but irrelevant.
No. Newton's Theory is quite clear and can produce stable orbits if and only the force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centers of the masses. (Well, that's a bit simplified. Newton correctly requires the integration of all the mass involved.) Reference: faculty.gg.uwyo.edu/dueker/GeophysicsClass/Newton%20derivation%20gravity.ppt (http://faculty.gg.uwyo.edu/dueker/GeophysicsClass/Newton%20derivation%20gravity.ppt) slide 5.

So Elitefusion is correct. Without the decrease in 'g' with increase in altitude, RET would not have orbits.
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: markjo on December 10, 2011, 09:08:46 AM
No. Newton's Theory is quite clear and can produce stable orbits if and only the force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centers of the masses. (Well, that's a bit simplified. Newton correctly requires the integration of all the mass involved.) Reference: faculty.gg.uwyo.edu/dueker/.../Newton%20derivation%20gravity.ppt (http://faculty.gg.uwyo.edu/dueker/.../Newton%20derivation%20gravity.ppt) slide 5.

So Elitefusion is correct. Without the decrease in 'g' with increase in altitude, RET would not have orbits.

I hate to say this, but Parsifal is right.  You forget that in a geostationary orbit, the satellite circles the earth once every 24 hours (an orbital velocity of 3.07 km/s).  It's the balance of the satellite's velocity and the earth's gravity that makes any stable orbit possible.
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: Tausami on December 10, 2011, 03:20:16 PM
The Bedford Level Experiment contradicts electromagnetic acceleration. I suggest you dump Bedford Level before you dump EA.


To answer the original question, it really doesn't. The only real difference between RET and FET is on a flat earth orbit/space travel is not possible. Basically one has a conspiracy, one doesn't.

I don't believe in EA. I go by Bishop's model of how that works.

Reductio ad Bishopum - the logical fallacy of believing anything Tom Bishop says.

Reductio ad Bishopum would be the logical fallacy of dismissing something because Tom Bishop said it. You're thinking of 'argumentum'.
Title: Re: Why must the FE model be true?
Post by: Rushy on December 10, 2011, 06:11:48 PM
The Bedford Level Experiment contradicts electromagnetic acceleration. I suggest you dump Bedford Level before you dump EA.


To answer the original question, it really doesn't. The only real difference between RET and FET is on a flat earth orbit/space travel is not possible. Basically one has a conspiracy, one doesn't.

I don't believe in EA. I go by Bishop's model of how that works.

Reductio ad Bishopum - the logical fallacy of believing anything Tom Bishop says.

Reductio ad Bishopum would be the logical fallacy of dismissing something because Tom Bishop said it. You're thinking of 'argumentum'.

Well in that case I'm glad latin is a dead language, but you get the point.