27
« on: December 23, 2009, 02:29:16 PM »
Hello everyone, this is my first post, but I have done my best to read through the entire FAQ and several of the discussion threads on the debate. Let me get a few points out of the way before I start my spiel:
1.) I think it’s great that we are all free to question the way the universe works. It makes me glad to see a site offering a new look at old physics. I think current quantum physical theory would do well to question itself in a manner similar to this, in order to improve it.
2.) The following is based entirely on science. I have no interest in, nor talent for, debate. To clarify, a debate is about winning and losing, discrediting your opposition, rationalization, and semantics. Science is merely the observation of physical phenomena, and an attempt to explain the mechanisms for them.
3.) As it stands, I have only really investigated theories concerning flat, finite earth. The other models presented I have not looked into great enough detail to speak about at this point.
4.) Just because a theory may be rejected, it does not mean all hope is lost for it. The theory only needs to be revised to accept the observation which rejected it.
Review of FET:
Scientific theory, you may recall, is body of theory based completely on the observation of physical phenomena. Therefore, any phenomena which is in direct disagreement with a particular point of theory means that the theory (or at least the part pertaining to the phenomena) must be incorrect, and needs to be adjusted to accept the phenomena.
That said; let me begin by examining the UA (universal accelerator). This concept is quite interesting, and on face value, a decent explanation for the apparent pull/push of objects to the surface of the earth. Thus, it has been said that the UA takes gravity as an explanation out entirely. Unfortunately, observations made on earth counteract this annunciation. Using a torsion balance, it was observed that two masses (in the experiment, lead balls) have a small, but measureable pull towards each other. The results of the experiment are in accordance with Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. In the current UA theory, as far as I have been able to see, there is no explanation for this mechanism, and until there is, the theory of gravity cannot be scientifically rejected in favor of UA.
Next is the measured distance of heavenly bodies. I will focus on the moon first. Simple experiments have been carried out in firing lasers at the moon and seeing how long it takes for the light to reflect back. In all trials, the time was the same, and was around 2 seconds. Using the determined value for the speed of light, this puts the moon between 200,000 and 250,000 miles away. Further experiments which were more technical in nature allow us narrow down this distance to a known perigee and apogee of the moon’s orbit. Not even bendy-light, which is a convoluted theory at best, can account for the staggering time delay of received light, so no mechanism is included in FET that adequately explains this phenomenon. Therefore, the part of the FET about the moon being 32 mi away must be rejected until a suitable mechanism can be determined.
The problem with the sun being as close as it is in the FET is the measurement of the temperature of the sun (by color), the incident power of the sun on the earth (measured to be 1400 W/sq m, approximately), and the radiating ability of a black body (assuming the sun is a black body radiator, which is a fair assumption, as assuming it is not causes further problems for the FET). With the current FET, a sun the size, distance, and temperature dictated with FET would not strike earth with an incident power of 1400 W/sq m. The math is a little lengthy, but I challenge all the science thinkers in the FE community to try it out for themselves. The theory regarding radiators was developed without any need to specify a round or flat earth, so it should not come under scrutiny. This phenomenon will most likely be rejected by claiming the sun is not a black body radiator, but I cannot comment on any other hypotheses until I have read them. The concept of a sky mirror was de-bunked by other members in an earlier thread, so I won’t repeat the observations here.
The last observation is that of bendy-light. Allegedly, there is a formal theory of electromagnetic acceleration (EA) somewhere in this forum, but I have not been able to locate it. The only comments I can make, in a scientific manner, only pertain to current electromagnetic theory, which is well documented in experimental observation and functional results (electric devices you use every day). The point of EA, I gather, is that light will appear to bend in an accelerating frame of reference. While this theory is technically in accordance with general relativity (which virtually all scientists will say is not 100% correct), the amount of deviation is called into question. Einstein hinted that this bend is actually due to the observer’s frame of reference acting as a gradient index of refraction, the degree to which it deviates is proportional t o the acceleration of the observer to the stationary reference viewing the straight line path of the light. While I have not directly worked out the degree of deviation, it would be surprising to find that over the short distance of viewing a ship at sea, the light refracts enough so as it appears to be sinking. If a member of the FE community could post the mathematics relating to the argument, it would be helpful. I have no formal observation (yet) which disagrees with bendy-light, but I know it has been discussed multiple times in the forums, with mixed results. Certainly, no amount of acceleration could cause light to refract back towards its source, otherwise, we could develop perfect camouflage (make things invisible). I would like to see further discussion of the alleged electromagnetic acceleration.
My last comment refers to the burden of proof in this review. In ALL previous cases of scientific inquiry (not just FE), the burden of proof is on the new theory, never the old. This is a tradition based on stability: a new theory must explain all the confirmed observations of the old theory, and account for new observations that the current (old) theory cannot explain. Otherwise, the new theory is either a.) bunk, or b.) just as good as the accepted theory, so there is no scientific need to alter it. This is simply the way science works, not an opinion.
There is my review of FET as I understand it for a finite earth. Based just upon the above, the current theory must be altered before it can be accepted as viable by science. I appreciate the time it took to read my post, and I promise, subsequent posts will be shorter.
Show Posts
