The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 21, 2012, 11:47:16 AM

Title: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 21, 2012, 11:47:16 AM
If Flat Earth Theory is correct, then how did Earth form? After all, such a large body would tend normally towards hydrostatic equilibrium, which would be a sphere. Additionally, if one flat planet formed, why aren't all stars, moons, and planets flat?

On another point, why, even on this forum, do some claim Earth to be a disk rushing rapidly upward, and claim space to be a mostly empty medium, like the early idea of the photoelectric ether, while others claim Earth to be surrounded by an undetectable dome in which all observable objects in 'space' are set?
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 22, 2012, 06:51:58 PM
Unless I'm mistaken, about this particular point, this post has received no address by one of the gallant defenders of Flat Earth 'Theory' because it's somewhat foolproof. Think differently? Don't be shy...
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Ski on May 22, 2012, 07:09:14 PM
Or maybe because the earth is not a liquid, we simply think the question is not pertinent.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 22, 2012, 07:15:55 PM
Or maybe because the earth is not a liquid, we simply think the question is not pertinent.

It would appear, Ski, that it went a little over your head. Hydrostatic equilibrium means achieving enough pressure to form the 'easiest' shape, that is, reverting to the lowest surface area to volume ratio. It doesn't mean that Earth is completely liquid, though it can be proven that much of it is molten.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Robbyj on May 22, 2012, 07:40:31 PM
Hydrostatic equilibrium means achieving enough pressure to form the 'easiest' shape, that is, reverting to the lowest surface area to volume ratio. It doesn't mean that Earth is completely liquid, though it can be proven that much of it is molten.

How does your hydrostatic equilibrium hold up if I were to place a ball of bread dough on a pastry board and then accelelrate that pastry board.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 22, 2012, 07:46:46 PM
Hydrostatic equilibrium means achieving enough pressure to form the 'easiest' shape, that is, reverting to the lowest surface area to volume ratio. It doesn't mean that Earth is completely liquid, though it can be proven that much of it is molten.

How does your hydrostatic equilibrium hold up if I were to place a ball of bread dough on a pastry board and then accelelrate that pastry board.

The bread would have to be awfully large to attain such equilibrium. You don't see many bread-dough planets.
And the whole point of this is that Earth is made of basalt, iron, and nickel (mostly), not bread dough. And such things don't place themselves on pastry boards. How would a flat Earth form? Any object, no matter how fast it's accelerating, in a virtually empty region like space, won't naturally, or unnaturally, form a plane. Especially when it's as massive as a planet.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Robbyj on May 22, 2012, 07:50:57 PM
The bread would have to be awfully large to attain such equilibrium. You don't see many bread-dough planets.
And the whole point of this is that Earth is made of basalt, iron, and nickel (mostly), not bread dough. And such things don't place themselves on pastry boards. How would a flat Earth form? Any object, no matter how fast it's accelerating, in a virtually empty region like space, won't naturally, or unnaturally, form a plane. Especially when it's as massive as a planet.

Rigidity is an illusion and irrelevant.  You did not answer the question.  What would happen to a spherical object with a force applied to the bottom of the sphere and accelerating?
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Ski on May 22, 2012, 07:53:18 PM
Or maybe because the earth is not a liquid, we simply think the question is not pertinent.

Hydrostatic equilibrium means achieving enough pressure
to form the 'easiest' shape, that is, reverting to the lowest surface area to volume ratio. It doesn't mean that Earth is completely liquid, though it can be proven that much of it is molten.

Where is this pressure coming from?
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 22, 2012, 07:58:48 PM
The bread would have to be awfully large to attain such equilibrium. You don't see many bread-dough planets.
And the whole point of this is that Earth is made of basalt, iron, and nickel (mostly), not bread dough. And such things don't place themselves on pastry boards. How would a flat Earth form? Any object, no matter how fast it's accelerating, in a virtually empty region like space, won't naturally, or unnaturally, form a plane. Especially when it's as massive as a planet.

Rigidity is an illusion and irrelevant.  You did not answer the question.  What would happen to a spherical object with a force applied to the bottom of the sphere and accelerating?

Depends on the circumstances. Under sufficient pressure, it would deform. However, as space has very regular pressure, objects in it do not deform like that. No air resistance. And you still haven't answered my question, how would a flat planet form?
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Robbyj on May 22, 2012, 08:05:38 PM
Depends on the circumstances. Under sufficient pressure, it would deform. However, as space has very regular pressure, objects in it do not deform like that. No air resistance. And you still haven't answered my question, how would a flat planet form?

You answered your own question, you just don't realize it.  Air resistance is also irrelevant to the question.  You can accelerate an object in a perfect vacuum and with sufficient force it would still deform.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 23, 2012, 02:31:03 PM
Depends on the circumstances. Under sufficient pressure, it would deform. However, as space has very regular pressure, objects in it do not deform like that. No air resistance. And you still haven't answered my question, how would a flat planet form?

You answered your own question, you just don't realize it.  Air resistance is also irrelevant to the question.  You can accelerate an object in a perfect vacuum and with sufficient force it would still deform.

Not to become flat. Not unless it had a completely uniform force forming a wall at enough speed and density to do so. If you're suggesting that, Earth would be going faster than light.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: BoatswainsMate on May 23, 2012, 05:19:40 PM
Sorry to get in the middle of this ( I am not familiar with many of the scientific debates going on on these forums) so please, if I am completely wrong then just let me know.

If earth is accelerating, is there a direction to this acceleration?  is it up, down, or to one side? it seems to me that if earth was indeed accelerating would the direction of acceleration dicate the shape?
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 23, 2012, 05:23:49 PM
Sorry to get in the middle of this ( I am not familiar with many of the scientific debates going on on these forums) so please, if I am completely wrong then just let me know.

If earth is accelerating, is there a direction to this acceleration?  is it up, down, or to one side? it seems to me that if earth was indeed accelerating would the direction of acceleration dicate the shape?

No, because space is, for practical purposes, omnidirectional. There is not an up of down.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: BoatswainsMate on May 23, 2012, 05:58:37 PM
Sorry to get in the middle of this ( I am not familiar with many of the scientific debates going on on these forums) so please, if I am completely wrong then just let me know.

If earth is accelerating, is there a direction to this acceleration?  is it up, down, or to one side? it seems to me that if earth was indeed accelerating would the direction of acceleration dicate the shape?

No, because space is, for practical purposes, omnidirectional. There is not an up of down.

If space is omnidirectional how do we account for a direction a space shuttle would travel to get to...say... the star Vega ( I know the space shuttle could not get to that star, just picked a random star I know) Astronomers can tell you which direction you have to look to see the star. So once in space... can you not use a direction? If I was in the shuttle can I not say Vega is at 005 and then head towards that direction based off of a gyroscope on board?

Sorry if I am side tracking this discussion. I just would like to know what is causing earth to accelerate and if so why is the planet not in a shape that would dictate that acceleration. If direction does not matter in space then why would the expanding or contracting universe say that everything is moving either away or towards a "center" point (center in quotes because I know there is no exact center to the universe). Just seems to me that you can still move in a perceptive direction in space...
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 23, 2012, 06:03:08 PM
Sorry to get in the middle of this ( I am not familiar with many of the scientific debates going on on these forums) so please, if I am completely wrong then just let me know.

If earth is accelerating, is there a direction to this acceleration?  is it up, down, or to one side? it seems to me that if earth was indeed accelerating would the direction of acceleration dicate the shape?

No, because space is, for practical purposes, omnidirectional. There is not an up of down.

If space is omnidirectional how do we account for a direction a space shuttle would travel to get to...say... the star Vega ( I know the space shuttle could not get to that star, just picked a random star I know) Astronomers can tell you which direction you have to look to see the star. So once in space... can you not use a direction? If I was in the shuttle can I not say Vega is at 005 and then head towards that direction based off of a gyroscope on board?

Sorry if I am side tracking this discussion. I just would like to know what is causing earth to accelerate and if so why is the planet not in a shape that would dictate that acceleration. If direction does not matter in space, then I am sorry to have asked this.

Yes, bearing vectors are appropriate. There simply is no up or down. Because of Earth's gravitational compression (9.8 m/s2), and Earth's immense size (comparatively), there seem to be an up and down, and, effectively, on planets and such, there are. But in space, all directions have the same effect. You can identify where something is, but it's at a vector, not 'up' or 'down.'
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: BoatswainsMate on May 23, 2012, 06:10:37 PM
Ah, thank you! that clears some stuff up. It still makes me wonder how earth is flat yet everything els in the universe is a sphere. As if when the gasses from the big bang created the solid earth with a superheated core the planet decided to suddenly go flat.... I am reading Steven Hawking's a brief history of time so I am becoming ever so curious as to how the earth could not possibly be spherical... not perfect, but spherical.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 23, 2012, 06:17:08 PM
Ah, thank you! that clears some stuff up. It still makes me wonder how earth is flat yet everything els in the universe is a sphere. As if when the gasses from the big bang created the solid earth with a superheated core the planet decided to suddenly go flat.... I am reading Steven Hawking's a brief history of time so I am becoming ever so curious as to how the earth could not possibly be spherical... not perfect, but spherical.

Well, reading Stephen Hawking's work is something that you haven't got in common with the FET. They don't seem to believe in mathematical support for their "theory," yet claim it to be reasonable science. Their idea for a flat Earth's formation seems to be that Earth formed a sphere, like everything else, (not sure how it formed, since Flat Earthers don't believe in gravity) but was somehow bumped from behind by a giant cookie sheet type object or force, that accelerated Earth so fast that it flattened.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: BoatswainsMate on May 23, 2012, 06:24:32 PM
That... seems as feasible as the flying spaghetti monster being an actual God.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 23, 2012, 06:28:35 PM
That... seems as feasible as the flying spaghetti monster being an actual God.

I'm sure you could start a cult that believes that. The FET has some members who're good at debate, but mainly because they're quite adept at pulling the self-proclaimed trumps like "You can't directly disprove it" and such. Try taking one of them on with mathematics and you'll have a frustrated Flat Earther.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: BoatswainsMate on May 23, 2012, 06:54:35 PM
The flying spaghetti monster was an attempt by the Orlando Weekly to mess with the creationists about a debate for school curriculum reform. I guess an example of a "cult" that is formed based off of pretty ridiculous claims would be scientology. founded by a science fiction writer to prove that he can make a religion out of nothing.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 23, 2012, 07:09:14 PM
The flying spaghetti monster was an attempt by the Orlando Weekly to mess with the creationists about a debate for school curriculum reform. I guess an example of a "cult" that is formed based off of pretty ridiculous claims would be scientology. founded by a science fiction writer to prove that he can make a religion out of nothing.

In this case, it was formed by a man who simply couldn't fit into his head that his world was not flat. He somehow managed to form a group. To this day the Flat Earth Society believes their "theory" to be legitimate science, though they have no evidence or otherwise support of it. There are still just under 1000 people who doggedly defend the idea.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: BoatswainsMate on May 23, 2012, 08:01:54 PM
Sometimes people just want to be part of something I guess.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 24, 2012, 06:47:17 AM
Depends on the circumstances. Under sufficient pressure, it would deform. However, as space has very regular pressure, objects in it do not deform like that. No air resistance. And you still haven't answered my question, how would a flat planet form?

You answered your own question, you just don't realize it.  Air resistance is also irrelevant to the question.  You can accelerate an object in a perfect vacuum and with sufficient force it would still deform.

So a FE would be very unlikely?
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 24, 2012, 11:00:32 AM
Depends on the circumstances. Under sufficient pressure, it would deform. However, as space has very regular pressure, objects in it do not deform like that. No air resistance. And you still haven't answered my question, how would a flat planet form?

You answered your own question, you just don't realize it.  Air resistance is also irrelevant to the question.  You can accelerate an object in a perfect vacuum and with sufficient force it would still deform.

So a FE would be very unlikely?

So the formation of a flat Earth would be virtually impossible. Even if one did form, it wouldn't be able to sustain life. It'd be more like an asteroid than a planet.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Robbyj on May 27, 2012, 06:27:32 AM
Not to become flat. Not unless it had a completely uniform force forming a wall at enough speed and density to do so. If you're suggesting that, Earth would be going faster than light.

An object can accelerate for an indefinite amount of time and never reach the speed of light.

Try taking one of them on with mathematics and you'll have a frustrated Flat Earther.

I would love to see your math supporting the statement above.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 27, 2012, 11:59:53 AM
Not to become flat. Not unless it had a completely uniform force forming a wall at enough speed and density to do so. If you're suggesting that, Earth would be going faster than light.

An object can accelerate for an indefinite amount of time and never reach the speed of light.

Try taking one of them on with mathematics and you'll have a frustrated Flat Earther.

I would love to see your math supporting the statement above.

I could start with something really basic, saying the area of a planet can be approximated with A=4πr2, and the volume of a sphere can be V=4/3πr3. Since we know that Earth's radius is about 6,371.0 km (it's been measured differently at the poles and the equator), one can easily determine what a spherical Earth's full dimensions are, approximately (V=536018.35 and A=510064471.91). I don't think you can say the same for a flat Earth.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Robbyj on May 27, 2012, 12:05:12 PM
What does that have to do with force and acceleration?

Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 27, 2012, 12:30:05 PM
What does that have to do with force and acceleration?

Oh yes, regarding acceleration and velocity, you actually answered my point, that an object itself can't surpass the speed of light.

Regarding acceleration, Earth's gravitational acceleration ("pull") is approximately 9.8 m/s2. If you've got a pendulum handy, you can measure it (gravitational acceleration) with this equation: g= T2/4Lπ2.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Robbyj on May 27, 2012, 03:17:36 PM
I did not answer your point at all. 

An object can accelerate for an indefinite amount of time and never reach the speed of light.

That is the exact opposite of your point. 
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 27, 2012, 05:59:49 PM
Now now, let's not stray from topic.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Ski on May 27, 2012, 06:57:53 PM
Is that the closest we'll see to an admission of error?
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 27, 2012, 07:00:44 PM
Is that the closest we'll see to an admission of error?

Quite the opposite. It's my deflection of Robbyj's attempt at switching topics to avoid my very relevant point, by illuminating a minor technicality.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Ski on May 27, 2012, 07:20:57 PM

He's not taking the conversation off-topic. He directly answered your first incorrect claim that the earth could not deform without air resistance. He told you exactly how and why a flat earth would so deform, and your only response was your next incorrect notion that the earth would be going faster than the speed of light. And now you are trying to deflect the conversation away from either error.


Depends on the circumstances. Under sufficient pressure, it would deform. However, as space has very regular pressure, objects in it do not deform like that. No air resistance. And you still haven't answered my question, how would a flat planet form?

You answered your own question, you just don't realize it.  Air resistance is also irrelevant to the question.  You can accelerate an object in a perfect vacuum and with sufficient force it would still deform.

Not to become flat. Not unless it had a completely uniform force forming a wall at enough speed and density to do so. If you're suggesting that, Earth would be going faster than light.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 27, 2012, 07:25:20 PM

He's not taking the conversation off-topic. He directly answered your first incorrect claim that the earth could not deform without air resistance. He told you exactly how and why a flat earth would so deform, and your only response was your next incorrect notion that the earth would be going faster than the speed of light. And now you are trying to deflect the conversation away from either error.


Depends on the circumstances. Under sufficient pressure, it would deform. However, as space has very regular pressure, objects in it do not deform like that. No air resistance. And you still haven't answered my question, how would a flat planet form?

You answered your own question, you just don't realize it.  Air resistance is also irrelevant to the question.  You can accelerate an object in a perfect vacuum and with sufficient force it would still deform.

Not to become flat. Not unless it had a completely uniform force forming a wall at enough speed and density to do so. If you're suggesting that, Earth would be going faster than light.

Oh? I wouldn't say so. Then again, misinterpretation is a wondrous thing.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Ski on May 27, 2012, 07:29:20 PM
If you have some sort of clarifying remark or relevant point to make, I'm sure we'd all be interested to read it. Which point am I misunderstanding?
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Robbyj on May 28, 2012, 05:42:32 AM
Is that the closest we'll see to an admission of error?

Quite the opposite. It's my deflection of Robbyj's attempt at switching topics to avoid my very relevant point, by illuminating a minor technicality.

I said the force of acceleration can cause deformation.  You said if that was the case the earth would be traveling faster than light.  I then said that it is impossible to reach the speed of light making it possible to continuously accelerate causing said deformation.  This is a minor technicality? 
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 28, 2012, 12:23:17 PM
Just what would be causing said deformation? And so regularly? At such speed?
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Robbyj on May 28, 2012, 12:53:08 PM
Just what would be causing said deformation?

Acceleration.  I believe I have already mentioned this six times in this thread.

And so regularly?

Constant acceleration.

At such speed?

Speed is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 28, 2012, 02:39:13 PM
Just what would be causing said deformation?

Acceleration.  I believe I have already mentioned this six times in this thread.

And so regularly?

Constant acceleration.

At such speed?

Speed is irrelevant.

Constant acceleration of matter is terminal; eventually it will be travelling at the speed of light, at which point it will cease accelerating. Speed is absolutely not irrelevant. I am aware that you have already mentioned it. However, you have yet to use any kind of specific language. You're on something, going somewhere, somehow.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Robbyj on May 28, 2012, 02:44:30 PM
Constant acceleration of matter is terminal; eventually it will be travelling at the speed of light, at which point it will cease accelerating.

This is where you are incorrect.

Speed is absolutely not irrelevant.

Speed has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 28, 2012, 02:47:13 PM
Constant acceleration of matter is terminal; eventually it will be travelling at the speed of light, at which point it will cease accelerating.

This is where you are incorrect.

Speed is absolutely not irrelevant.

Speed has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Oh? Perhaps, for once, you would like to explain why?
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Robbyj on May 28, 2012, 02:53:28 PM
The speed of light is not some magical speed limit that inhibits acceleration once you reach it.  You cannot exceed the speed of light because you can never reach the speed of light.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 28, 2012, 03:13:52 PM
The speed of light is not some magical speed limit that inhibits acceleration once you reach it.  You cannot exceed the speed of light because you can never reach the speed of light.

Again, not true. Light has mass, and travels at the speed of light. Therefor matter can reach the speed of light. However, matter can't surpass the speed of light. Space, however, can travel faster than the speed of light.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Robbyj on May 28, 2012, 04:10:28 PM
Again, not true. Light has mass, and travels at the speed of light.

Photons have energy and momentum, but rest mass is zero.

Therefor matter can reach the speed of light.

Incorrect.

Space, however, can travel faster than the speed of light.

Relative to what?
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 28, 2012, 09:17:44 PM
I feel the need to point out that actually reading the FAQ (as has already been suggested elsewhere) would have saved both Grandiloquent Granduncle and (the ever-patient and persevering) Robbyj a lot of trouble:


Q: "If the Earth's acceleration is constant, wouldn't it be traveling faster than light eventually?"

A: The equations of Special Relativity prevent an object with mass from reaching or passing the speed of light. Due to this restriction, these equations prove that the Earth can accelerate at a constant rate forever in our reference frame and never reach the speed of light. Click here for an in depth explanation (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=3152.msg28574#msg28574).


I suggest you read the above, GG, and then do some independent research.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Conker on May 29, 2012, 05:18:18 AM
The FE would be courved upwards on the border, in a pizza like shape
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: EmperorZhark on May 29, 2012, 05:37:05 AM
I feel the need to point out that actually reading the FAQ (as has already been suggested elsewhere) would have saved both Grandiloquent Granduncle and (the ever-patient and persevering) Robbyj a lot of trouble:


Q: "If the Earth's acceleration is constant, wouldn't it be traveling faster than light eventually?"

A: The equations of Special Relativity prevent an object with mass from reaching or passing the speed of light. Due to this restriction, these equations prove that the Earth can accelerate at a constant rate forever in our reference frame and never reach the speed of light. Click here for an in depth explanation (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=3152.msg28574#msg28574).


I suggest you read the above, GG, and then do some independent research.

Do you have an idea why should Einstein's equation should apply to a theory he would have dismissed as utterly wrong?
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 29, 2012, 06:26:18 AM
How can one believe in relativity and a flat Earth en lieu?
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: trig on May 29, 2012, 08:53:52 AM
How can one believe in relativity and a flat Earth en lieu?
There have been two main arguments around this. One of them is to attack the Michelson-Morely experiment, believing that this is enough to demolish Relativity like a house of cards, and the other is to believe Einstein was so intelligent that he discovered relativity but such and idiot that he calculated the effects of gravitational lensing and of Relativity on the planets' orbits without noticing that the Sun and planets as we know them do not exist.

If there was one person in human history capable of discovering the Conspiracy, it would have been Einstein. Instead, he gave us better evidence of the absurdity of Rowbotham than anyone else ever could.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 29, 2012, 08:58:45 AM
Interesting thought..
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Conker on May 29, 2012, 09:28:15 AM
Well, as Relativity requires gravity, can we disprove the use of Relativity on a FE theory? Then, why
earth isn't traveling FTL?
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2012, 10:19:17 AM
General Relativity (bendy space causes gravity) is not the same as Special Relativity (moving frames of references). Only Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity has been demonstrated through experimentation (See the Hadfel-Keatng Experiment (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html)).

No one has demonstrated that the fabric of space bends to cause the gravity we feel on earth, which is why General Relativity is rejected on this forum.

Like most physicists, Einstein has a lot of failed theories. He spent 40 years trying to unify electromagnitism and gravity, which didn't really get anywhere.

One other way he failed was in a 1935 paper called the "EPR Paradox" for Einstein-Podolski-Rosen, the authors. They tried to show that quantum mechanics could not be a complete description of reality with a careful argument. Unfortunately it did not convince everyone.

His most famous equation might be E = mc2, but Einstein himself doubted how important it was. He dismissed the notion that it might one day be at the heart of a new energy source, declaring in 1934 that “there is not the slightest indication” that atomic energy will ever be possible.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 29, 2012, 10:20:55 AM
General Relativity (bendy space causes gravity) is not the same as Special Relativity (moving frames of references). Only Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity has been demonstrated through experimentation. No one has demonstrated that the fabric of space bends to cause the gravity we feel on earth.

Like most physcists, Einstein has a lot of failed theories. He spent 40 years trying to univy electromagnitism and gravity, which didn't really get anywhere.

One other way he failed was in a 1935 paper called the "EPR Paradox" for Einstein-Podolski-Rosen, the authors. They tried to show that quantum mechanics could not be a complete description of reality with a careful argument. Unfortunately it did not convince everyone.

His most famous equation might be E = mc2, but Einstein himself doubted how important it was. He dismissed the notion that it might one day be at the heart of a new energy source, declaring in 1934 that “there is not the slightest indication” that atomic energy will ever be possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Conker on May 29, 2012, 10:58:38 AM
General Relativity (bendy space causes gravity) is not the same as Special Relativity (moving frames of references). Only Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity has been demonstrated through experimentation (See the Hadfel-Keatng Experiment (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html)).

No one has demonstrated that the fabric of space bends to cause the gravity we feel on earth, which is why General Relativity is rejected on this forum.

Like most physicists, Einstein has a lot of failed theories. He spent 40 years trying to unify electromagnitism and gravity, which didn't really get anywhere.

One other way he failed was in a 1935 paper called the "EPR Paradox" for Einstein-Podolski-Rosen, the authors. They tried to show that quantum mechanics could not be a complete description of reality with a careful argument. Unfortunately it did not convince everyone.

His most famous equation might be E = mc2, but Einstein himself doubted how important it was. He dismissed the notion that it might one day be at the heart of a new energy source, declaring in 1934 that “there is not the slightest indication” that atomic energy will ever be possible.
The "EPR" paradox resulted to be true, and it was only to strange to people's minds. In fact, the EPR paradox (Something can be at two different places in the same time I think) is the core of actual quantum physics. Also, the cosmological constant has a new meaning in Dark Energy Theory. And General Theory HAS been proved. Read about Mercury's anomaly amd Gravitatorial lens
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: trig on May 29, 2012, 11:17:49 AM
General Relativity (bendy space causes gravity) is not the same as Special Relativity (moving frames of references). Only Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity has been demonstrated through experimentation (See the Hadfel-Keatng Experiment (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html)).

No one has demonstrated that the fabric of space bends to cause the gravity we feel on earth, which is why General Relativity is rejected on this forum.

Like most physicists, Einstein has a lot of failed theories. He spent 40 years trying to unify electromagnitism and gravity, which didn't really get anywhere.

One other way he failed was in a 1935 paper called the "EPR Paradox" for Einstein-Podolski-Rosen, the authors. They tried to show that quantum mechanics could not be a complete description of reality with a careful argument. Unfortunately it did not convince everyone.

His most famous equation might be E = mc2, but Einstein himself doubted how important it was. He dismissed the notion that it might one day be at the heart of a new energy source, declaring in 1934 that “there is not the slightest indication” that atomic energy will ever be possible.
This is, as everything Tom Bishop does, a word game. He tries to discredit some of Einstein's theories by showing that Einstein was not infallible, as if science depended on this. We accept both theories of Relativity because they have been extensively verified, not because Einstein wrote them or because we believe he was a Quantum Mechanics genius.

Even if you do not want to accept other evidence, we have seen the effect of gravitational lensing and we have seen the effect of General Relativity in the orbits of planets. We even have mounting evidence of the existence of black holes.

On the other hand, Tom Bishop does not even have a working model of the movement of the stars, planets, Moon and Sun. If Einstein had ever known about Rowbotham, he would have died of laughter.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2012, 11:20:55 AM
Who proved through experimentation that the fabric of space-time bends? Gravitational Lensing shows that light bends around stars, nothing about the fabric of space-time bending. The Quantum Mechanics Graviton theory also predicts that stars pull photons.

Please show me how General Relativity was experimentally proven.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 29, 2012, 11:25:24 AM
Who proved through experimentation that the fabric of space-time bends? Gravitational Lensing shows that light bends around stars, nothing about the fabric of space-time bending. The Quantum Mechanics Graviton theory also predicts that stars also pull photons.

Please show me how General Relativity was experimentally proven.

Photons are particles of light. You just said "Gravity bends light, and it also bends light." If space-time does not conform, then explain gravitational lensing.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2012, 11:32:02 AM
Who proved through experimentation that the fabric of space-time bends? Gravitational Lensing shows that light bends around stars, nothing about the fabric of space-time bending. The Quantum Mechanics Graviton theory also predicts that stars also pull photons.

Please show me how General Relativity was experimentally proven.

Photons are particles of light. You just said "Gravity bends light, and it also bends light." If space-time does not conform, then explain gravitational lensing.

Under Quantum Mechanics the theory for gravity is that there are these little subatomic particles called the Graviton which pull us to the earth. This is what is responsible for "gravity". It also predicts that light will be pulled towards stars.

How does observing light warp around some stars show that the fabric of space is bending, rather than any other effect which attracts light to stars?

It was claimed that General Relativity was proven experimentally, so where are the experiments?
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: trig on May 29, 2012, 11:35:02 AM
Who proved through experimentation that the fabric of space-time bends? Gravitational Lensing shows that light bends around stars, nothing about the fabric of space-time bending. The Quantum Mechanics Graviton theory also predicts that stars also pull photons.

Please show me how General Relativity was experimentally proven.
So, here come more word games. Tom Bishop does not want an experiment or observation that verifies the model, he wants an experiment that shows that the word "fabric" is well used.

But somehow the real Physicists of this world have been able to understand the meaning that was intended, and are in agreement that the proposed experiments verify or falsify General Relativity. If everyone else understands the intended use of the terminology except Tom Bishop, what does that say about his intelligence?
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2012, 11:39:23 AM
So, here come more word games. Tom Bishop does not want an experiment or observation that verifies the model, he wants an experiment that shows that the word "fabric" is well used.

All Gravitational Lensing shows us is that light is attracted to stars. You might as well tell me to step off a chair for evidence of General Relativity.

General Relativity makes specific claims that the fabric of space bends to cause 'gravity'. This is what needs to be proven, not "things attract". Please reference a single experiment which suggests that the fabric of space is bending, or even exists.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Grandiloquent Granduncle on May 29, 2012, 11:43:44 AM
So, here come more word games. Tom Bishop does not want an experiment or observation that verifies the model, he wants an experiment that shows that the word "fabric" is well used.

All Gravitational Lensing shows us is that light is attracted to stars. You might as well tell me to step off a chair for evidence of General Relativity.

General Relativity makes specific claims that the fabric of space bends to cause 'gravity'. This is what needs to be proven, not "things attract". Please reverence a single experiment which suggests that the fabric of space is bending, or even exists, and that the apparent attraction is not caused by any other mechanism.

The Large Hadrian Collider has been used to successfully warp the fabric of space-time. All records indicated this.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: markjo on May 29, 2012, 12:00:37 PM
No one has demonstrated that the fabric of space bends to cause the gravity we feel on earth, which is why General Relativity is rejected on this forum.

Actually, they have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2012, 12:50:32 PM
The Large Hadrian Collider has been used to successfully warp the fabric of space-time. All records indicated this.

Source?

People on this forum have stated that they bent space-time by dropping a ball to the floor. But this is not a demonstration that space-time is bending.

No one has demonstrated that the fabric of space bends to cause the gravity we feel on earth, which is why General Relativity is rejected on this forum.

Actually, they have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

In QM the Graviton theory of gravity also predicts those things. Studying the movements of planets and stars which pass behind the sun does not tell us anything about the mechanism of the attraction, only that things attract. What, specifically, tells us that the very fabric of space-time is bending, or that it even exists?

General Relativity makes specific claims which remain undemonstrated. Numerous theories could explain why light is attracted to the sun, or why anything attracts. There needs to be an actual test of General Relativity, not "starlight is attracted to the sun, therefore space bends."

Indeed, watching starlight being attracted to the sun tells us only that starlight is physically attracted to the sun, it does not suggest that space is bending in the background to make it look like there is attraction when there is not. Another case of choosing illusion over reality.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: markjo on May 29, 2012, 01:19:59 PM
No one has demonstrated that the fabric of space bends to cause the gravity we feel on earth, which is why General Relativity is rejected on this forum.

Actually, they have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity)

In QM the Graviton theory of gravity also predicts those things.

First of all, does it?  Last I knew, QM is generally not useful for astronomical predictions.  Secondly, so what if it does?  You said that GR had not been tested and I provided a source that says otherwise. 

Quote
General Relativity makes specific claims which remain undemonstrated. Numerous theories could explain why light is attracted to the sun, or why anything attracts. There needs to be an actual test of General Relativity, not "starlight is attracted to the sun, therefore space bends."

Actually, starlight bending around a star is a demonstration of space-time warping that was predicted by GR and confirmed by experimental observation.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: trig on May 29, 2012, 02:00:17 PM
So, here come more word games. Tom Bishop does not want an experiment or observation that verifies the model, he wants an experiment that shows that the word "fabric" is well used.

All Gravitational Lensing shows us is that light is attracted to stars. You might as well tell me to step off a chair for evidence of General Relativity.

General Relativity makes specific claims that the fabric of space bends to cause 'gravity'. This is what needs to be proven, not "things attract". Please reference a single experiment which suggests that the fabric of space is bending, or even exists.
See? Just word games. Tom Bishop tries to deflate whole theories by saying they just serve a tiny purpose, And, of course they serve just a tiny purpose because Tom Bishop will not show interest in other purposes

And again Tom Bishop wants to see a demonstration that the word "fabric" is the exact word for the phenomenon. Would the theory be better accepted by Tom Bishop if Einstein had said "infrastructure"? Or "schwapping"? So, I guess Tom Bishop will not be happy until I show him a thread from the fabric. And even then he would object because he had envisioned it of another color.

Theories produce predictions and if the predictions are verified the definitions made in the writing of the theory become new definitions of those words. Nobody expects the "charm" quark to be charming, or the "strange" quark to be stranger than the others. And nobody expects the electrons to be "negative energy" (as in evil energy) or the protons to be good energy. Physics is not word games.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Kendrick on May 29, 2012, 03:07:09 PM
Some of you have been here long enough that you should know better.  The rest of you - here is a quote from a Moderator to help you join the enlightened.

Really.  Well congrats on recognizing Tom as a troll and still being the biggest sucker for his bullshit I've ever seen on this site.  I guarantee he doesn't put in half as much time playing the game with everybody as you do attempting to discredit him.

Kudos for being so decisively pwned by a troll.  ;D
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 29, 2012, 03:51:17 PM
Some of you have been here long enough that you should know better.  The rest of you - here is a quote from a Moderator to help you join the enlightened.

Really.  Well congrats on recognizing Tom as a troll and still being the biggest sucker for his bullshit I've ever seen on this site.  I guarantee he doesn't put in half as much time playing the game with everybody as you do attempting to discredit him.

Kudos for being so decisively pwned by a troll.  ;D


Yes, I think Tom is a troll.  You could probably have even pulled a much more recent (i.e. within the last two months) post demonstrating that.  The really sad thing is I think all these guys know it, and they still choose to endlessly argue with him.

Now, to be fair, the debate itself is a great deal of the attraction of this website, whatever someone believes.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: El Cid on May 29, 2012, 10:43:16 PM
What, specifically, tells us that the very fabric of space-time is bending, or that it even exists?

Reality exists independent of human observation.

For example, when you use the word 'uncertainty' you mean that you are not certain about something that may or may not happen. You have learnt to use this word in connection with a number of finite situations, such as whether or not it will rain tomorrow. The word is not usually used to mean 'the uncertainty whether anything will go on existing' or 'the uncertainty whether anything is existing now'. It is illegitimate to use the word 'uncertainty' to refer to these kinds of uncertainty, and it is therefore impossible to formulate any statements whatever about them.

In this simple way all discourse about the infinite and inconceivable is eliminated, for it is evident that all human words have actually been developed by finite beings to deal with things they are able to conceive.

There is now no need to think about 'reality' except in the sense of 'what all right-thinking humans are in verbal agreement about'.

For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 30, 2012, 07:26:41 PM
This is, as everything Tom Bishop does, a word game. He tries to discredit some of Einstein's theories by showing that Einstein was not infallible, as if science depended on this.


To be fair trig, you were the one who suggested that because Einstein was right about one thing, he was therefore unlikely to be wrong about something else.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Lord Wilmore on May 30, 2012, 07:28:49 PM
Reality exists independent of human observation.


There is now no need to think about 'reality' except in the sense of 'what all right-thinking humans are in verbal agreement about'.


Which is it? ???

Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: garygreen on May 30, 2012, 09:01:20 PM
The Large Hadrian Collider has been used to successfully warp the fabric of space-time. All records indicated this.

Source?

People on this forum have stated that they bent space-time by dropping a ball to the floor. But this is not a demonstration that space-time is bending.

No one has demonstrated that the fabric of space bends to cause the gravity we feel on earth, which is why General Relativity is rejected on this forum.

Actually, they have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

In QM the Graviton theory of gravity also predicts those things. Studying the movements of planets and stars which pass behind the sun does not tell us anything about the mechanism of the attraction, only that things attract. What, specifically, tells us that the very fabric of space-time is bending, or that it even exists?

General Relativity makes specific claims which remain undemonstrated. Numerous theories could explain why light is attracted to the sun, or why anything attracts. There needs to be an actual test of General Relativity, not "starlight is attracted to the sun, therefore space bends."

Indeed, watching starlight being attracted to the sun tells us only that starlight is physically attracted to the sun, it does not suggest that space is bending in the background to make it look like there is attraction when there is not. Another case of choosing illusion over reality.

Tell me, Tom, to which quantum mechanical theory of gravity are you referring?  You make this claim regularly, that General Relativity is equivalent to quantum descriptions of gravity.  Can you demonstrate this, or provide a source that can warrant your claim?

Here is a paper that explains some of the successes of General Relativity, and it explains why spacetime warping is a integral and fundamental aspect of this theory of gravity.  Gravitational theories that do not take this warping into account make different, less accurate predictions.

Testing General Relativity in the Solar System (https://www.box.com/s/ebcb06bf311bd94dc3dc), Turyshev 2010.

(http://i.imgur.com/awqj2.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/OlG9g.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/p1JGQ.png)
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: trig on May 31, 2012, 01:48:54 AM
This is, as everything Tom Bishop does, a word game. He tries to discredit some of Einstein's theories by showing that Einstein was not infallible, as if science depended on this.


To be fair trig, you were the one who suggested that because Einstein was right about one thing, he was therefore unlikely to be wrong about something else.
If you are also going to play word games, at least be intellectually honest: Einstein was, in essence, right about one thing (Relativity) therefore he was necessarily right about another thing (the orbits of the planets) that is so closely related that one cannot understand one without the other.

When your two things are totally unrelated you are right not to extend the credibility of a person from one thing to another. But you are insulting Einstein when you reduce his work to just things.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: BoatswainsMate on May 31, 2012, 12:24:59 PM
I just have to say this, maybe it is off topic, but on topic in a certain way. I find it strange that FE has to dismiss all claims and photos from space exploration even from private or just the average joe evidences. Do you not find it funny that FE is so perfectly defended at all sides from any evidence that would disprove it? like when this theory was made they got together and thought of all the ways it can be disproven and called them all fake, false, or a conspiracy.

Everything that can disprove FE is disproven by FE... flippen strange. Sorry if I derailed a little, but I am getting tired of any discussions about space or physics simply blow off because you cannot use any scientific evidence... it is all fake,lies, or conspiracy. Once something does come up that can disprove FE no one dares touch it, and the ones that did attempt to defend FE start to nit pick at questions and choose what they want to argue, not what is being asked.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Damion on June 10, 2012, 01:09:48 AM
I still want to know what force would have flattened the earth. can anyone explain how accelaration would have done this.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Damion on June 10, 2012, 01:14:20 AM
I guess I can kind visualise the gravitational force of the elements in liguid form pushing down on each other making it flat so I guess I answered that myself lol.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Thork on June 10, 2012, 02:52:19 AM
I still want to know what force would have flattened the earth. can anyone explain how acceleration would have done this.
In the early formation of the earth it would have been a molten lump of rock. As it accelerated through space before the gases had been released from the rock to form an atmosphere, meteors would have pummelled earth as it cooled whilst  it accelerated into them. Meteors are most likely responsible for smashing the surface of the earth into a flat shape. Like hammering a piece of hot iron.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Conker on June 10, 2012, 12:01:36 PM
I still want to know what force would have flattened the earth. can anyone explain how acceleration would have done this.
In the early formation of the earth it would have been a molten lump of rock. As it accelerated through space before the gases had been released from the rock to form an atmosphere, meteors would have pummelled earth as it cooled whilst  it accelerated into them. Meteors are most likely responsible for smashing the surface of the earth into a flat shape. Like hammering a piece of hot iron.

Where do meteors come from?
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Thork on June 10, 2012, 12:07:59 PM
Where do meteors come from?
You get them when a mummy and a daddy meteor, love each other very much.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Conker on June 10, 2012, 12:15:13 PM
Where do meteors come from?
You get them when a mummy and a daddy meteor, love each other very much.

You are just displacing the problem. How was born the first meteor?
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Thork on June 10, 2012, 12:17:07 PM
Where do meteors come from?
You get them when a mummy and a daddy meteor, love each other very much.

You are just displacing the problem. How was born the first meteor?
God made it.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Conker on June 10, 2012, 12:34:15 PM
Where do meteors come from?
You get them when a mummy and a daddy meteor, love each other very much.

You are just displacing the problem. How was born the first meteor?
God made it.

Who made God?
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Thork on June 10, 2012, 12:36:30 PM
Where do meteors come from?
You get them when a mummy and a daddy meteor, love each other very much.
You are just displacing the problem. How was born the first meteor?
God made it.

Who made God?
He wasn't created. He just is.

Quote from: God (Revelations 22:13)
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Conker on June 10, 2012, 12:40:27 PM
Where do meteors come from?
You get them when a mummy and a daddy meteor, love each other very much.
You are just displacing the problem. How was born the first meteor?
God made it.

Who made God?
He wasn't created. He just is.

Quote from: God (Revelations 22:13)
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
And who said that? God? Do you really believe a guy that appears and claims to be inmortal and to have createn you?
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Thork on June 10, 2012, 12:42:52 PM
Where do meteors come from?
You get them when a mummy and a daddy meteor, love each other very much.
You are just displacing the problem. How was born the first meteor?
God made it.

Who made God?
He wasn't created. He just is.

Quote from: God (Revelations 22:13)
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
And who said that? God? Do you really believe a guy that appears and claims to be inmortal and to have createn you?
He sounds pretty powerful. Its probably best not to provoke him. :-\
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Conker on June 10, 2012, 12:53:20 PM
Where do meteors come from?
You get them when a mummy and a daddy meteor, love each other very much.
You are just displacing the problem. How was born the first meteor?
God made it.

Who made God?
He wasn't created. He just is.

Quote from: God (Revelations 22:13)
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
And who said that? God? Do you really believe a guy that appears and claims to be inmortal and to have createn you?
He sounds pretty powerful. Its probably best not to provoke him. :-\
I live on a region famous for its 160 forest fires a year. I don't fear a flaming bush.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Rushy on June 10, 2012, 01:21:36 PM
I live on a region famous for its 160 forest fires a year. I don't fear a flaming bush.

Any time you go on a date, God will punish you with a flaming bush.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Conker on June 10, 2012, 01:27:38 PM
I live on a region famous for its 160 forest fires a year. I don't fear a flaming bush.

Any time you go on a date, God will punish you with a flaming bush.
Too late, I think
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Thork on June 10, 2012, 01:59:54 PM
I live on a region famous for its 160 forest fires a year. I don't fear a flaming bush.

Any time you go on a date, God will punish you with a flaming bush.
Too late, I think
Get Canesten.  (http://www.canesten.co.uk/)
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: BoatswainsMate on June 10, 2012, 02:40:17 PM
I live on a region famous for its 160 forest fires a year. I don't fear a flaming bush.

Any time you go on a date, God will punish you with a flaming bush.

Fire crotch!
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Conker on June 11, 2012, 06:36:08 AM
I live on a region famous for its 160 forest fires a year. I don't fear a flaming bush.

Any time you go on a date, God will punish you with a flaming bush.

Fire crotch!
Not this again.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Lord Wilmore on June 11, 2012, 05:39:48 PM
If you are also going to play word games, at least be intellectually honest: Einstein was, in essence, right about one thing (Relativity) therefore he was necessarily right about another thing (the orbits of the planets) that is so closely related that one cannot understand one without the other.

When your two things are totally unrelated you are right not to extend the credibility of a person from one thing to another. But you are insulting Einstein when you reduce his work to just things.


trig, I'd like it if in future you stopped referring to logic as 'word games'. It's not, and doesn't even have to involve words.


Just because Einstein was right about SR, it does not follow that he was right about GR. My point is only trivial to the extent that I shouldn't have to make it; that I do reflects poorly on your argument, not mine.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: markjo on June 11, 2012, 08:25:21 PM
Just because Einstein was right about SR, it does not follow that he was right about GR.

What part(s) of GR do you think that Einstein is or might wrong about?
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: trig on June 12, 2012, 08:46:17 AM
If you are also going to play word games, at least be intellectually honest: Einstein was, in essence, right about one thing (Relativity) therefore he was necessarily right about another thing (the orbits of the planets) that is so closely related that one cannot understand one without the other.

When your two things are totally unrelated you are right not to extend the credibility of a person from one thing to another. But you are insulting Einstein when you reduce his work to just things.


trig, I'd like it if in future you stopped referring to logic as 'word games'. It's not, and doesn't even have to involve words.


Just because Einstein was right about SR, it does not follow that he was right about GR. My point is only trivial to the extent that I shouldn't have to make it; that I do reflects poorly on your argument, not mine.
No, you are the one who wants to pass silly word games as real logic.

I am not saying that Einstein was right about GR because he was right about SR. That is your word game, not mine.

I am saying that GR and SR are intricately related, and that being the foremost expert in one gives credence to his position on the other. That is not an absolute logical argument, so you still can amaze all of us with your knowledge of GR,SR or any other subject of Physics for that matter, and then your opinions on Physics will receive proper credibility. But wait... every time you pretend to talk about Physics you end up playing word games and trying to pass them as logical arguments. Does that make your knowledge of Physics any more credible?

And by the way, you need both GR and SR to predict the orbit of the planets, mainly of Mercury, to the accuracy that we have of it. Pretending that Einstein was good at GR and bad at SR does not explain that both of them have been verified through observations of the planets, among many other experiments and observations.

You are about 70 years obsolete in your knowledge of Relativity. In those times you could have said that Einstein was completely wrong about one or both theories, but not now.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Lord Wilmore on June 19, 2012, 10:14:57 PM
No, you are the one who wants to pass silly word games as real logic.

I am not saying that Einstein was right about GR because he was right about SR. That is your word game, not mine.

I am saying that GR and SR are intricately related, and that being the foremost expert in one gives credence to his position on the other. That is not an absolute logical argument, so you still can amaze all of us with your knowledge of GR,SR or any other subject of Physics for that matter, and then your opinions on Physics will receive proper credibility. But wait... every time you pretend to talk about Physics you end up playing word games and trying to pass them as logical arguments. Does that make your knowledge of Physics any more credible?

And by the way, you need both GR and SR to predict the orbit of the planets, mainly of Mercury, to the accuracy that we have of it. Pretending that Einstein was good at GR and bad at SR does not explain that both of them have been verified through observations of the planets, among many other experiments and observations.

You are about 70 years obsolete in your knowledge of Relativity. In those times you could have said that Einstein was completely wrong about one or both theories, but not now.


trig, here is what you said:


There have been two main arguments around this. One of them is to attack the Michelson-Morely experiment, believing that this is enough to demolish Relativity like a house of cards, and the other is to believe Einstein was so intelligent that he discovered relativity but such and idiot that he calculated the effects of gravitational lensing and of Relativity on the planets' orbits without noticing that the Sun and planets as we know them do not exist.


This is a simple case of 'Einstein was clever enough to be right about A, therefore he could not have been wrong about B'. It's a terrible argument, and it was totally hypocritical of you to then accuse Tom of trying to discredit one theory by discrediting another.


You can no more validate one theory by validating another than you can discredit one theory by discrediting another. You can't just whinge about 'word games' when we point out that your arguments are hypocritical and lame. Stop complaining and make better arguments.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: trig on June 20, 2012, 01:30:05 AM
No, you are the one who wants to pass silly word games as real logic.

I am not saying that Einstein was right about GR because he was right about SR. That is your word game, not mine.

I am saying that GR and SR are intricately related, and that being the foremost expert in one gives credence to his position on the other. That is not an absolute logical argument, so you still can amaze all of us with your knowledge of GR,SR or any other subject of Physics for that matter, and then your opinions on Physics will receive proper credibility. But wait... every time you pretend to talk about Physics you end up playing word games and trying to pass them as logical arguments. Does that make your knowledge of Physics any more credible?

And by the way, you need both GR and SR to predict the orbit of the planets, mainly of Mercury, to the accuracy that we have of it. Pretending that Einstein was good at GR and bad at SR does not explain that both of them have been verified through observations of the planets, among many other experiments and observations.

You are about 70 years obsolete in your knowledge of Relativity. In those times you could have said that Einstein was completely wrong about one or both theories, but not now.


trig, here is what you said:


There have been two main arguments around this. One of them is to attack the Michelson-Morely experiment, believing that this is enough to demolish Relativity like a house of cards, and the other is to believe Einstein was so intelligent that he discovered relativity but such and idiot that he calculated the effects of gravitational lensing and of Relativity on the planets' orbits without noticing that the Sun and planets as we know them do not exist.


This is a simple case of 'Einstein was clever enough to be right about A, therefore he could not have been wrong about B'. It's a terrible argument, and it was totally hypocritical of you to then accuse Tom of trying to discredit one theory by discrediting another.


You can no more validate one theory by validating another than you can discredit one theory by discrediting another. You can't just whinge about 'word games' when we point out that your arguments are hypocritical and lame. Stop complaining and make better arguments.
You have made the textbook Strawman Fallacy. Even though you are told once, and again and again that the argument is much more than you want to read, you go back to your watered down version and try to attack it.

It is impossible to really understand either SR or GR without understanding the cosmos and vice versa. Both SR and GR are necessary to understand things like the orbits of the planets and gravitational lensing, and we don't have a better theory to understand them, either.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Lord Wilmore on June 20, 2012, 08:17:22 AM
trig, your post is right there. I'm not watering down anything, I'm presenting what you said, i.e. the argument you actually made. I'm not saying better arguments don't exist, just that you made a rubbish one, and then jumped on Tom when he made the same point in reverse.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: trig on June 20, 2012, 08:19:13 AM
trig, your post is right there. I'm not watering down anything, I'm presenting what you said, i.e. the argument you actually made. I'm not saying better arguments don't exist, just that you made a rubbish one, and then jumped on Tom when he made the same point in reverse.
And it is clear to everyone who reads it, except you.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Lord Wilmore on June 20, 2012, 08:33:18 AM
trig, your post is right there. I'm not watering down anything, I'm presenting what you said, i.e. the argument you actually made. I'm not saying better arguments don't exist, just that you made a rubbish one, and then jumped on Tom when he made the same point in reverse.
And it is clear to everyone who reads it, except you.


Here is what you said:


the other is to believe Einstein was so intelligent that he discovered relativity but such and idiot that he calculated the effects of gravitational lensing and of Relativity on the planets' orbits without noticing that the Sun and planets as we know them do not exist.


That's all you posted. That's it. You made precisely the same point Tom subsequently did, only in reverse.


As for them being closely related, I'm not sure why the points Tom raised are any less related or relevant than the ones you raised. Whatever way you cut it, it was still a hypocritical point to level at Tom.


Finally, Einstein did not 'discover' relativity. It's not a thing out there in the universe. It's a theory, which he invented, and his being right about the basic concepts is in no way dependent on his calculations regarding the universe as we know it. The latter followed from the former, not the other way around, so this idea that he couldn't possibly have been right about one and wrong about the other is stupid.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: trig on June 20, 2012, 09:13:41 AM
trig, your post is right there. I'm not watering down anything, I'm presenting what you said, i.e. the argument you actually made. I'm not saying better arguments don't exist, just that you made a rubbish one, and then jumped on Tom when he made the same point in reverse.
And it is clear to everyone who reads it, except you.


Here is what you said:


the other is to believe Einstein was so intelligent that he discovered relativity but such and idiot that he calculated the effects of gravitational lensing and of Relativity on the planets' orbits without noticing that the Sun and planets as we know them do not exist.


That's all you posted. That's it. You made precisely the same point Tom subsequently did, only in reverse.


As for them being closely related, I'm not sure why the points Tom raised are any less related or relevant than the ones you raised. Whatever way you cut it, it was still a hypocritical point to level at Tom.


Finally, Einstein did not 'discover' relativity. It's not a thing out there in the universe. It's a theory, which he invented, and his being right about the basic concepts is in no way dependent on his calculations regarding the universe as we know it. The latter followed from the former, not the other way around, so this idea that he couldn't possibly have been right about one and wrong about the other is stupid.
Again and again and again, you try to dissociate the theories of relativity from gravitational lensing and the orbits of planets. That is not new in FE "theories", where you want to claim some of Einstein's work as good for you, but the experiments and observations that either motivated or tested the theory as idiotic. The two are inseparable.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Lord Wilmore on July 12, 2012, 10:05:43 PM
Bleating X doesn't make X true. Indeed, your statements betray your ignorance of the history of relativistic physics.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: burt on July 13, 2012, 07:44:55 PM
Where do meteors come from?
You get them when a mummy and a daddy meteor, love each other very much.
;D low-content post alert, thork you are an unhinged though funny mofo
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: burt on July 13, 2012, 07:56:04 PM
Bleating X doesn't make X true. Indeed, your statements betray your ignorance of the history of relativistic physics.

You mean the revisionist history made up by levee...
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: burt on July 13, 2012, 08:00:17 PM
If Flat Earth Theory is correct, then how did Earth form? After all, such a large body would tend normally towards hydrostatic equilibrium, which would be a sphere. Additionally, if one flat planet formed, why aren't all stars, moons, and planets flat?

On another point, why, even on this forum, do some claim Earth to be a disk rushing rapidly upward, and claim space to be a mostly empty medium, like the early idea of the photoelectric ether, while others claim Earth to be surrounded by an undetectable dome in which all observable objects in 'space' are set?

1. The earth is not a planet.
2. A special kind of gravity exists in FE.

Not a flat earth believer, just a conscientious objector.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: EmperorZhark on July 14, 2012, 01:47:52 AM
If Flat Earth Theory is correct, then how did Earth form? After all, such a large body would tend normally towards hydrostatic equilibrium, which would be a sphere. Additionally, if one flat planet formed, why aren't all stars, moons, and planets flat?

On another point, why, even on this forum, do some claim Earth to be a disk rushing rapidly upward, and claim space to be a mostly empty medium, like the early idea of the photoelectric ether, while others claim Earth to be surrounded by an undetectable dome in which all observable objects in 'space' are set?

1. The earth is not a planet.
2. A special kind of gravity exists in FE.

Not a flat earth believer, just a conscientious objector.

1. Yet has to be demonstrated by FET.
2. Has to be demonstrated by you. Has to be demonstrated also: why UA affects only the Earth and not things on it and why gravity doesn't affect Earth.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: burt on July 14, 2012, 09:10:21 AM
If Flat Earth Theory is correct, then how did Earth form? After all, such a large body would tend normally towards hydrostatic equilibrium, which would be a sphere. Additionally, if one flat planet formed, why aren't all stars, moons, and planets flat?

On another point, why, even on this forum, do some claim Earth to be a disk rushing rapidly upward, and claim space to be a mostly empty medium, like the early idea of the photoelectric ether, while others claim Earth to be surrounded by an undetectable dome in which all observable objects in 'space' are set?

1. The earth is not a planet.
2. A special kind of gravity exists in FE.

Not a flat earth believer, just a conscientious objector.

1. Yet has to be demonstrated by FET.
2. Has to be demonstrated by you. Has to be demonstrated also: why UA affects only the Earth and not things on it and why gravity doesn't affect Earth.

I don't have to demonstrate anything; I don't believe either of the above things.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: Pyriew on July 20, 2012, 11:53:54 AM
Open a bible and you'll get a truly logical and scientific answer, not some theoretical hogwash.
Title: Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
Post by: FlatOrange on July 20, 2012, 06:56:39 PM
Allow me to don my flat earth hat for a minute. You see time as something that moves forward. You believe there is a past and a future. But I tell you that time is merely an illusion created in the mind's of man. The Earth always has been and always will be. Do not let the illusion of time cloud your judgment. What is infinite needs no beginning.

Hot diggity, wouldn't I make a good flat earther?