The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: cartwheelnurd on December 09, 2012, 12:45:10 PM
-
A response to the list of flaws in RET
1: Eclipses
2: Neutrinos
3: Distances in southern hemisphere
4: Reliance on religious principles to support theories
Feel free to add more!
-
You have no idea how happy number 2 has made me.
-
5. The Wilmore model has a sun that lights up parts of the world where they can't possibly even see the sun. New Zealanders never see the sun.*
5.5 Wilmore Model: *New Zealand. North/South/Up down/WTF?
6. Antarctica: whole or not--it's a fact that if you are on antarctica in its summer-time, the sun will make a complete circle in the sky around you. This is not possible on either FET model.
-
The model that is not the wilmore model, has Antarctica surrounding the rest of the earth, but it was explored long before space travel and was always (and still is) depicted as one continent surrounded by water.
-
The southern hemisphere is just one big fail.
-
1. Antichthon
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Antichthon.svg/250px-Antichthon.svg.png)
2. Trajectories appear bent by UA.
3. Is wrong for RET. Don't expect us to duplicate the same mistakes.
4. Never happens. No one says "god dun it".
5. Its not the 'Wilmore' model. Only that idiot iwantobelieve calls it that because he's completely obsessed with Wilmore. Its a Lambert azimuthal equal-area projection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_azimuthal_equal-area_projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_azimuthal_equal-area_projection)
5.5 answered
6. You say that like you have been there. Which you haven't.
-
Why would UA bend the path a neutrino? Upwards no less.
-
Thork swoops in and secures a record time Flat Earth victory
-
I thought I saw a cape.
-
Why would UA bend the path a neutrino? Upwards no less.
Are you referring to the neutrinos that supposedly broke the speed of light?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/09/110923-neutrinos-speed-of-light-particles-cern-physics-einstein-science (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/09/110923-neutrinos-speed-of-light-particles-cern-physics-einstein-science)
Totally embarrassing for the RET crowd that one. Then some back tracking, crossing out, changing of numbers and ... do you know what, I'm not interested in the absolute mess they made of that experiment. Its been bodged to fit the round earth model after it clearly didn't.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484)
^ have a read through the comments section of all those knowledgeable people giving opinions on what they think the results mean in their best science voices. Happy to ditch Einstein at a moments notice or embrace him again in an instant. Whatever the papers tell them to believe really. And with a nasal condescending explanation to match.
-
Your chart showing the movement of the sun, how would this fit in with its movements over the earth to create day night cycles and seasonal cycles?
-
Why would UA bend the path a neutrino? Upwards no less.
Are you referring to the neutrinos that supposedly broke the speed of light?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/09/110923-neutrinos-speed-of-light-particles-cern-physics-einstein-science (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/09/110923-neutrinos-speed-of-light-particles-cern-physics-einstein-science)
Totally embarrassing for the RET crowd that one. Then some back tracking, crossing out, changing of numbers and ... do you know what, I'm not interested in the absolute mess they made of that experiment. Its been bodged to fit the round earth model after it clearly didn't.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484)
^ have a read through the comments section of all those knowledgeable people giving opinions on what they think the results mean in their best science voices. Happy to ditch Einstein at a moments notice or embrace him again in an instant. Whatever the papers tell them to believe really. And with a nasal condescending explanation to match.
No why would UA bend a neutrino, straight forward question? Nothing to do with a timing error.
I would have though a forum that prides itself on skepticism would be hailing that as an example of how science should be done. Publishing an uncomfortable result even though you know its probably wrong and will probably have to climb down. It was a brave thing to do but it was the right thing to do, only embarrassing if you don't know how science should work.
-
1. Antichthon
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Antichthon.svg/250px-Antichthon.svg.png)
2. Trajectories appear bent by UA.
3. Is wrong for RET. Don't expect us to duplicate the same mistakes.
4. Never happens. No one says "god dun it".
5. Its not the 'Wilmore' model. Only that idiot iwantobelieve calls it that because he's completely obsessed with Wilmore. Its a Lambert azimuthal equal-area projection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_azimuthal_equal-area_projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_azimuthal_equal-area_projection)
5.5 answered
6. You say that like you have been there. Which you haven't.
1. YOur chart shows the earth moving around a central point. FET is geocentric and there is no force which would cause this movement.
2. NO they don;t
3. we have a ton of shipping data, flight data, etc. to support our point. YOu don;t
4. some people do.
5. still a terrible model.
5.5 answered
6. Wonderful comeback. it is obvious that nobody ever has gone to antarctica.
-
5. The Wilmore model has a sun that lights up parts of the world where they can't possibly even see the sun. New Zealanders never see the sun.*
This is the distribution of light in the model I support, which I have christened the Antichtonean model:
Please note that this image does not accurately represent the position of the Sun, just the distribution of Sunlight.
(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b382/qpiine/Flat%20Earth/equinox-1.gif)
5.5 Wilmore Model: *New Zealand. North/South/Up down/WTF?
North and South have nothing to do with up and down. Compasses point toward the magnetic field lines emanating from the poles. You are conflating totally unrelated concepts.
6. Antarctica: whole or not--it's a fact that if you are on antarctica in its summer-time, the sun will make a complete circle in the sky around you. This is not possible on either FET model.
If light is bent, then so is the apparent position of the Sun. The apparent position of the Sun will thus be different to its actual position.
-
5. The Wilmore model has a sun that lights up parts of the world where they can't possibly even see the sun. New Zealanders never see the sun.*
This is the distribution of light in the model I support, which I have christened the Antichtonean model:
Please note that this image does not accurately represent the position of the Sun, just the distribution of Sunlight.
(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b382/qpiine/Flat%20Earth/equinox-1.gif)
HOw then, is there a point where the sun lights up only the edges of the earth? That doesn;t make any sense.
-
Aetheric eddies bend light so that it arrives only in those areas. The fluctuation may be caused by the movement of aether, the actual (as opposed to apparent) movement of the Sun, or a combination of both.
-
North and South have nothing to do with up and down. Compasses point toward the magnetic field lines emanating from the poles. You are conflating totally unrelated concepts.
Why don't you draw magnetic field lines on your picture.
Aetheric eddies bend light so that it arrives only in those areas. The fluctuation may be caused by the movement of aether, the actual (as opposed to apparent) movement of the Sun, or a combination of both.
Comments like these show just how important the scientific method is. Zetetic method leads to made up answers.
-
Why don't you draw magnetic field lines on your picture.
The longitudinal lines serve as an illustration of concept.
Aetheric eddies bend light so that it arrives only in those areas. The fluctuation may be caused by the movement of aether, the actual (as opposed to apparent) movement of the Sun, or a combination of both.
Comments like these show just how important the scientific method is. Zetetic method leads to made up answers.
The answer I have given is merely speculation - I do not consider it to have been Zetetically demonstrated. Scientists speculate all the time, without any evidence to support that speculation. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, because speculating is a normal thing for humans to do. As long as it is acknowledged to be speculation, then be you scientist or Zetetic, there is no problem.
-
Aetheric eddies bend light so that it arrives only in those areas. The fluctuation may be caused by the movement of aether, the actual (as opposed to apparent) movement of the Sun, or a combination of both.
I'd love to see some evidence for this, as well as a few observations of these eddies. Perhaps if we bounced a radio signal off of them it would wind up in antarctica?
-
Why don't you draw magnetic field lines on your picture.
The longitudinal lines serve as an illustration of concept.
So north of Australia is Africa? Seems like how you claim the suns position is wrong, so is everything else but the light.
The answer I have given is merely speculation - I do not consider it to have been Zetetically demonstrated. Scientists speculate all the time, without any evidence to support that speculation. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, because speculating is a normal thing for humans to do. As long as it is acknowledged to be speculation, then be you scientist or Zetetic, there is no problem.
Ok, so it is just your opinion just trying to find an answer. You didn't point this out.
-
So north of Australia is Africa? Seems like how you claim the suns position is wrong, so is everything else but the light.
North is whatever direction the magnetic field lines emanating from the South pole and leading to the North pole lead in.
Ok, so it is just your opinion just trying to find an answer. You didn't point this out.
Not in this thread, but I have done so on many times in other threads. Moreover, I have outlined my interpretation of the Zetetic Method (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,48821.0.html#.UMaQc-TtRIE), and noted the distinction between speculation and Zetetic demonstration. The methodological status of the claim was not relevant to the question asked, and given my very public stance on the the subject, I can hardly be accused of deception.
-
So north of Australia is Africa? Seems like how you claim the suns position is wrong, so is everything else but the light.
North is whatever direction the magnetic field lines emanating from the South pole and leading to the North pole lead in.
And it needs to match what is observed. Your map doesn't match anything. It's fitting your map is posted in this thread titled" List of flaws in FET" Still no accurate FE map.
Not in this thread, but I have done so on many times in other threads. Moreover, I have outlined my interpretation of the Zetetic Method (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,48821.0.html#.UMaQc-TtRIE), and noted the distinction between speculation and Zetetic demonstration. The methodological status of the claim was not relevant to the question asked, and given my very public stance on the the subject, I can hardly be accused of deception.
Ok, due to your previous writings I will take whatever you say as speculation if no "sufficient empirical data" is provided. There is no other way.
-
And it needs to match what is observed. Your map doesn't match anything. It's fitting your map is posted in this thread titled" List of flaws in FET" Still no accurate FE map.
I don't claim that it is accurate. It is merely an image used for illustrative purposes. Given how often I say this, I am amazed that long-standing members continue to act as though I have said otherwise.
-
So this map now... Its just a projection of an Earth onto a flat surface... So nobody suggested anything... You just copied a RET map and said it works for you
-
So this map now... Its just a projection of an Earth onto a flat surface... So nobody suggested anything... You just copied a RET map and said it works for you
It's what I think the rough arrangement of the continents is. How difficult is that to understand? ???
-
A response to the list of flaws in RET
1: Eclipses
2: Neutrinos
3: Distances in southern hemisphere
4: Reliance on religious principles to support theories
Feel free to add more!
Hi,
There are over 100 verified proofs the earth is flat.
http://flatearthlogic.webs.com/hundredproofs.htm (http://flatearthlogic.webs.com/hundredproofs.htm)
I do not rely on religion to justify theories, merely reason. Neutrinos are only a theoretical construct physicists use to make their piecemeal models work and keep their grant writers happy.
-
A response to the list of flaws in RET
1: Eclipses
2: Neutrinos
3: Distances in southern hemisphere
4: Reliance on religious principles to support theories
Feel free to add more!
Hi,
There are over 100 verified proofs the earth is flat.
http://flatearthlogic.webs.com/hundredproofs.htm (http://flatearthlogic.webs.com/hundredproofs.htm)
I do not rely on religion to justify theories, merely reason. Neutrinos are only a theoretical construct physicists use to make their piecemeal models work and keep their grant writers happy.
First of all, I read the first ten of those and could dismiss every one. If you want to tell me the ones that you think I can't answer, feel free. But I won;t read all of them after seeing ten ridiculous ones.
Second of all, the reliance on religion is what i see as the reason for many things, such as the formation of the planet and its strange attributes, whihc cannot and has not been explained asa far as I have seen.
FInally, the nuetrinos exist and they have multibillion dollar detectors which do, in fact, provide data. You can;t say that neutrinos are a conspiracy, because every physisict whose ever studied them has to be in on it. This is less plausible than the NASA conspiracy.
-
Hi,
There are over 100 verified proofs the earth is flat.
http://flatearthlogic.webs.com/hundredproofs.htm (http://flatearthlogic.webs.com/hundredproofs.htm)
I do not rely on religion to justify theories, merely reason. Neutrinos are only a theoretical construct physicists use to make their piecemeal models work and keep their grant writers happy.
1. The aeronaut can see for himself that Earth is a Plane. The appearance presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has ever attained, is that of a concave surface - this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface that is truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.
In 1885 there was never anyone that jumped from space was there?
8. If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
Mariners now carry GPS and they are usable thanks to the coordinate system of our global Earth and the many satellites that orbit the Earth.
17. Human beings require a surface on which to live that, in its general character, shall be LEVEL; and since the Omniscient Creator must have been perfectly acquainted with the requirements of His creatures, it follows that, being an All-wise Creator, He has met them thoroughly. This is a theological proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Oh here we go... *face palm*
-
So this map now... Its just a projection of an Earth onto a flat surface... So nobody suggested anything... You just copied a RET map and said it works for you
It's what I think the rough arrangement of the continents is. How difficult is that to understand? ???
IS THERE ANY MAP THAT DOES AS A GLOBE DOES FOR FET?!?!?! IT CANT BE HARD
-
IS THERE ANY MAP THAT DOES AS A GLOBE DOES FOR FET?!?!?!
Lie about the shape of the earth? No.
-
flatorange, I could go on and on. Most of those proofs are downright ridiculous.
29. If the Earth were a globe, it would, unquestionably, have the same general characteristics - no matter its size - as a small globe that may be stood upon the table. As the small globe has top, bottom, and sides, so must also the large one - no matter how large it be. But, as the Earth, which is "supposed" to be a large globe, bas no sides or bottom as the small globe has, the conclusion is irresistible that it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Yes this makes sense. Globes definitely have definitive sides and had been seen from space in 1885.
67. Seven-hundred miles is said to be the length of the great Canal, in China, Certain it is that, when this canal was formed, no "allowance" was made for "curvature." Yet the canal is a fact without it. This is a Chinese proof that the Earth is not a globe.
This also makes sense. Chinese proofs are fundamentally different than western ones. Also the author seems to assume that people are perfect and that every measurement is exact, as well as the fact that there would be a noticable curvature over supershort distances.
THese are all ridiculous.
-
A response to the list of flaws in RET
1: Eclipses
2: Neutrinos
3: Distances in southern hemisphere
4: Reliance on religious principles to support theories
Feel free to add more!
1.. Explained by eyewalls
2. No issue
3. An issue in RET, not FET
4. Incorrect
-
A response to the list of flaws in RET
1: Eclipses
2: Neutrinos
3: Distances in southern hemisphere
4: Reliance on religious principles to support theories
Feel free to add more!
1.. Explained by eyewalls
2. No issue
3. An issue in RET, not FET
4. Incorrect
What are eyewalls in this context?
How do you explain the neutrino phenomenon (not breaking the speed of light, but being shot into the ground to arrive at another detination)
We can support ourselves with data, and have. YOu have not.
Only for some is religion a problem.
-
A response to the list of flaws in RET
1: Eclipses
2: Neutrinos
3: Distances in southern hemisphere
4: Reliance on religious principles to support theories
Feel free to add more!
1.. Explained by eyewalls
2. No issue
3. An issue in RET, not FET
4. Incorrect
What are eyewalls in this context?
How do you explain the neutrino phenomenon (not breaking the speed of light, but being shot into the ground to arrive at another detination)
We can support ourselves with data, and have. YOu have not.
Only for some is religion a problem.
1. Exactly what they sound like, existing within the Aetheric Whirlpool.
2. Well, the main beliefs are that they either refract (see electromagnetic acceleration theory) or have some form of repulsion to aether. Either would cause them to bend, resulting in an apparent curvature.
3. Incorrect
4. It's not a problem for the majority. This argument is equivalent to me saying that the existence of YEC'ers are a problem for RET. They're an embarrassment, nothing more.
-
Okay now do 5 and 6. I'm afraid Lord Wilmore didn't understand what I was saying about New Zealanders and their orientation. Do they look towards Antarctica to see the sun? Why/why not?
Do the aetheric winds make the sun appear in the northern sky for new zealanders when it fact it is south of them?
-
Okay now do 5 and 6. I'm afraid Lord Wilmore didn't understand what I was saying about New Zealanders and their orientation. Do they look towards Antarctica to see the sun? Why/why not?
Do the aetheric winds make the sun appear in the northern sky for new zealanders when it fact it is south of them?
The actual position of the Sun is impossible to know without a fully developed theory of aether. The apparent position is determined by the movement of both aether and the Sun itself.
-
Your chart showing the movement of the sun, how would this fit in with its movements over the earth to create day night cycles and seasonal cycles?
It fits perfectly.
-
(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b382/qpiine/Flat%20Earth/equinox-1.gif)
thank you very much for this very helpful illustration.
i'm finding that many of the questions i have regarding the flat earth have been discussed here, but actually locating the discussions is very slow.
-
I'd like the FES to explain the flaw in FET that is stellar aberration, which proves the motion of the earth around the sun.
I'd also like them to explain where the moon is during a solar eclipse.
-
I'd like the FES to explain the flaw in FET that is stellar aberration, which proves the motion of the earth around the sun.
I'd also like them to explain where the moon is during a solar eclipse.
How does the slight shifting of stars prove that the earth moves? Observing movement of the stars only suggests that the stars move.
-
I'd like the FES to explain the flaw in FET that is stellar aberration, which proves the motion of the earth around the sun.
I'd also like them to explain where the moon is during a solar eclipse.
How does the slight shifting of stars prove that the earth moves? Observing movement of the stars only suggests that the stars move.
I thought you guys followed Einstein's laws? It shows that the earth and stars move relative to each other. Whether the earth stands still and the universe moves around it or the earth moves and the stars stand still, it is fundamentally the same thing. Stellar aberration proves that there is a relative motion between them which is equivalent to that which would be experienced if the stars were still relative to the earth if the earth was following an ellipse around the sun. Your claim that it ONLY suggests that the stars move is rubbish, of course, like all the other physics you advocate.
But if you want to perceive stellar aberration as being caused by billions of other unrelated objects all moving in sync in a pattern that is equivalent to a relative movement of the earth in an elliptical orbit as independently predicted by Newton's laws, then that's your prerogative. Since these two options are indistinguishable under the laws of relativity, it requires there to be some sort of extra evidence to decide which is happening.
Newton's laws quite adequately explain the pattern of the motion in its speed, direction and magnitude if it's taken to be the earth moving around the sun. Tell me Mr Bishop, what known laws of physics back up your alternative explanation?
And would you like to tell me where you think the moon is during a solar eclipse? You can use a diagram if you like. Is it mentioned in Earth Not a Globe?
-
I'd like the FES to explain the flaw in FET that is stellar aberration, which proves the motion of the earth around the sun.
I'd also like them to explain where the moon is during a solar eclipse.
How does the slight shifting of stars prove that the earth moves? Observing movement of the stars only suggests that the stars move.
It's not that the stars appear to move, but it's how the stars appear to move that proves that the earth moves around the sun.
http://cseligman.com/text/history/bradley.htm (http://cseligman.com/text/history/bradley.htm)
(http://cseligman.com/text/history/parallax.jpg)(http://cseligman.com/text/history/aberration.jpg)
How Bradley's observations differed from the expected effects of parallax. As shown on the left, as the Earth moves to one side of its orbit, g Draconis should move to the opposite side of its parallactic ellipse (the path the star seems to follow during the year, as a result of our motion around the Sun). Thus, when the Earth is at points A, B and C, the star should appear to be at points a, b and c. Instead, as shown on the right, as the Earth moves from one point to the next, the apparent positions are shifted in the direction of the Earth's motion, which is a quarter circle ahead of the expected parallactic shift. In addition (although not demonstrated here), the amount of the parallactic shift depends upon the star's distance, being larger for closer stars, and smaller for more distant stars; whereas stellar aberration is the same for every star in a given region, regardless of its distance. (Parallax produces an elliptical motion, circular at the Ecliptic poles, and linear at the Ecliptic plane, whose semi-major axis equals the reciprocal of each star's distance in parsecs, which is of course different for different stars. Stellar aberration produces an elliptical motion, circular at the Ecliptic poles, and linear at the Ecliptic plane, whose semi-major axis equals a constant, regardless of the distance or angular position of the star, equal to one radian multiplied by the ratio of the Earth's orbital velocity, to the speed of light. Said statements to be explained in further revisions of this page.)
-
Watching the stars slowly and slightly shift in position over the course of the year only proves that the stars are shifting in position. It says nothing of the earth.
-
Watching the stars slowly and slightly shift in position over the course of the year only proves that the stars are shifting in position. It says nothing of the earth.
Are you unable to read either of the last two posts? ???
-
Yes, someone saw a star wobble and assumed that it must be the earth in motion, in contradiction to the direct observation that the star was in motion.
The actual phenomena doesn't happen with all stars, only a few. Since in FET the stars are small and close to the earth and in constant motion, it stands to reason that some stars might be slightly wobbly in their motion.
The seasons in particular are caused by the sun moving North-South over the year, squishing and contracting in their circular motion around the North Pole between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. The FAQ simplifies the matter by saying the sun moves, but it's not just the sun that moves, but the entire stellar system which contracts and expands over a period of six months. It might be that a side effect of this movement causes the parallax wobble of the stars shifting from left to right every six months as seen in the illustration you posted.
-
Yes, someone saw a star wobble and assumed that it must be the earth in motion, in contradiction to the direct observation that the star was in motion.
The actual phenomena in action is more like a slight shift north-south and then south north over the course of the year. It doesn't happen with all stars, either, only a few. Since in FET the stars are small and close to the earth and in constant motion, it stands to reason that some stars might be slightly wobbly in their motion.
I presented the information that the two are indistinguishable under relativity (ignored by you) and that in order to work out which movement takes priority we must look at the forces in action. I made the case for the forces described by Newton leading to the conclusion that the observed movement between earth and stars pointing to the earth moving relative to the billions of stars rather than the billions of stars moving cyclically relative both to the earth AND each other (also backed up in Markjo's post). I requested you present your case for the forces in action that would cause this movement (ignored by you).
So in summary: we've shown how the otherwise indistinguishable movement is more likely to be the earth rather than the rest of the universe moving. It's your turn to present your case for the forces involved causing stars to move. I'm almost tempted to say if you think that "direct observation" is enough, then you must think when you sit in a train carriage the landscape is magically pulled past you while you remain motionless. Because that's what direct observation shows us.
-
Yes, someone saw a star wobble and assumed that it must be the earth in motion, in contradiction to the direct observation that the star was in motion.
The actual phenomena doesn't happen with all stars, only a few. Since in FET the stars are small and close to the earth and in constant motion, it stands to reason that some stars might be slightly wobbly in their motion.
Again, it's not so much that the stars wobble, it's that they wobble out of sync from what would be expected if the earth were stationary.