Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - EternalHoid

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth General / How are the stars faked?
« on: December 27, 2015, 06:57:57 AM »
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65251.0#.Vn_7g1n-uQ4
The stars show the earth is be a sphere, so how does NASA fake the stars.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Celestial sphere
« on: December 26, 2015, 03:31:05 PM »
The celestial sphere is used in astronomy. Explanation of what it is, http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/cel_sphere.htm
The stars are mapped onto the sphere. You can only see the stars in the half of the sphere centred around you. No more, no less (excluding light pollution).
This technique would make no sense on a flat earth, and wouldn't work, how come it does.

P.S. How come stars visible at the tip of south America  are also visible in Australia, when nether can see the north star, which is between the two.
Edit: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast121/lectures/lec02.html Not strongly related but it's intresting to see how the model of the solar system has developed, and that the earth has been known to be round for a long time, maybe some people will realise they have gone backwards with FET.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Being able to make predictions.
« on: December 25, 2015, 01:33:39 AM »
A scientific theory needs to be able to predict the future as well as explaining the past. FET is yet to give anyways of doing this, take orbits for example, in RET you know that the sun is at the center and the planets are moving around it in ellipses. This allows you to take the position of the planets in the sky over time, and use geometry to work out where they go next. No method has yet been given by FET, I will assume no method exists until one is given.
P.S. Don't say you have no resources, I'm not asking you to gather the data needed to make the prediction, I just want to know the method of making a prediction.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Does acceleration need to exist relative to something
« on: December 24, 2015, 10:39:20 AM »
I have made a thread to discuss this because it was causing the original question to be ignored,
The statement was about the concept of universal acceleration
Quote
Do you have any idea how conceptually problematic the idea of universal acceleration is?  Something can only be identified as accelerating in relation to something else.  If the universe is accelerating, what the hell is it accelerating in relation to?  Because the real universe by definition contains that and all that is real, there cannot be anything real enough outside of it to relate its rate of acceleration to.  Next time try an idea that is actually plausible, oh arrogant one.
Now I think this is wrong, velocity only exists relatively, acceleration of an object is the same in all reference frames, in special relativity the acceleration of an object will be different in other reference frames, but you can still calculate the acceleration of an object in its own reference frame from any reference frame.
Also measuring your own acceleration doesn't need you to compare your acceleration to something else like velocity does.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Another problem with ather
« on: December 24, 2015, 03:33:32 AM »
Its the downwards movement of ather that creates gravity, but in some places it must be moving up instead to fill the void left by the downwards ather, so where the ather moves up there would be an upwards gravity. No one has seen these upwards gravity spots. Therefore ather is wrong.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Occams Razor
« on: December 23, 2015, 08:06:30 AM »
Occam’s Razor, there are a few different ways of writing it, I like "Keep it simple" because it follows its own advice, but when talking about theories it’s better to say “Out of two competing theories, the simpler one is better”. The problem I have seen is people misuse the razor, out of confusion about what it means for a theory to be simpler.

So what is meant by simplicity of a theory, looking at the complexity of the whole theory is wrong, because the more things a theory explains, the more complex it becomes, so that leads to a theory that explains less things becoming the “better” one. It is better to look at one thing both theories explain and see which gives a simpler explanation.
For example take geocentrism and the modern model of the universe and the orbit of planets in both models. In the modern model the planets in the solar system orbits the sun and go in circles and are simply explained by gravity, when the earth is the centre you have the added complexity of epicycles and the orbit path looks like this http://www.ottisoft.com/img/Geocentric_view.jpg. So the modern theory has simpler orbits, even though it more complex over all since it contains more things, e.g. black holes, life cycles of suns, etc.

There is also a second problem, lets create a theory called the TV theory, where everything in the sky is just an image on a large TV screen or similar object, in this model everything can be simply explained by saying it’s just what the TV screen is showing us: orbits, it’s what the TV shows; supernovas, it’s what the TV shows; sun sets, it’s what the TV shows. Occam’s razor appears to say go with TVT. TVT can explain anything very simply, but do you know what is can’t do. PREDICT. So Occam’s razor should be written as, “Given two theories, the one that can predict events in a simpler way is better”.

If TVT was to make predictions, you would have to say the TV is showing us an image of a solar system with the planets orbiting the sun, now it would be simpler to just say we are in a solar system, the TV isn’t necessary (this was the original use of Occam’s razor, to remove unnecessary metaphysics objects).

So to sum up, don’t look at the complexity of the whole theory when using Occam’s razor, look at the complexity of an aspect both theories predict.
And saying a theory explains something simpler is not a valid use of Occam’s razor, because if it was than TVT is the best theory. Predictions are the main thing that matter.
“Given two theories, the one that can predict events in a simpler way is better”.

7
Flat Earth General / Rocket launch
« on: December 15, 2015, 12:23:37 PM »
So there was a rocket launch to the IS today.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Universal accelerator disproved.
« on: December 09, 2015, 11:27:29 AM »
I while ago I gave an argument against the universal accelerator. Since it is the explaination the website gives for what causes gravity I should of got a reply why it was wrong by now. Since I haven't the only answer is that the universal accelerator doesn't exist, so the site needs to update its facts.
Here is the prove again. The universal accelerator must accelerate all point of the earth at the same rate, otherwise the earth would tear apart. At the top of mount everest acceleration due to gravity has been measured as being less than normal. Since there is a contradiction, the universal accelerator hypothesis must be false.
You need to fix this page http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Gravity#Universal_Acceleration

9
Flat Earth Debate / Aether as a fluid.
« on: December 09, 2015, 11:05:37 AM »
Aether acts as a fluid with no viscosity.
Over time a fluid will reach equilibrium, viscosity may effect the speed which is happens at, but having no frictional forces shouldn't stop it from occering. The only force acting on the fluid will be pressure, which always makes a fluid reach equilibrium.
If the aether exists shouldn't it come to an equilibrium. Input from someone that knows a mathmatical model for defusion would make the argument solid.

10
What are they.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Evidence that the earth is not round.
« on: November 24, 2015, 10:31:31 AM »
Can someone tell me what it is. The only pieces I have seen are experiments that show you can see marginally further than you should, and this can be explained by some optical effects and bad measurements. What is the evidence that I can easily test or see, e.g. being able to see America from Europe using a telescope.

Your answer must also obey the laws of physics, or first prove them false. So no saying "planes should move faster one way" or "the earth should move when we jump". An object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by a force, all objects on the earth are moving with it, so when we jump the earth should not appear to move sideways, because there is no reason why we should not keep moving with it. Unless you prove the laws of motion false, but they are a main part of mechanics so I doubt it.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Does anyone here accept they could be wrong.
« on: November 22, 2015, 03:15:52 PM »
Is it possible to get anyone on this site to change what theory they believe. As everyone probably thinks they are right, is there any point to the debates. Probably not.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Changes in gravity.
« on: November 22, 2015, 03:26:54 AM »
In different parts of the world gravity is measured at slightly different values. In RE this is caused by being a different distances from the earths core. In FE this would cause the earth to get teared apart as gravity is acceleration. Acceleration being slower at the top of mountains should cause them to collapse. If the earth if 4.5 billion years old, then there should be no mountains.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Foucault pendulum
« on: November 21, 2015, 08:49:55 AM »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
A foucault pendulum rotates in a different direction depending on the hemisphere. If the earth was flat then every part of the earth would have the pendulum rotating in the same direction, why does the direction of rotation change when the equator is crossed.

Pages: [1]