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 - ClockTower

Pages: [1] 2
Tausami continues to thrash about with wild claims about some great new FET model and the ole song-and-dance about not having enough time to write down his model. Let's help him.

He claims that he does believe that gravity does exist and does cause attraction of objects near the Earth, including the dropping ball of Tom Bishop's recent claim, but it's weaker than Einstein predicts.

Of course, we're always happy to see FEers claim to have bettered Newton, Cavendish, Boys, and Einstein. We do so look forward to their acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize.

Notwithstanding their arrogance, let's examine the claim against reality.

There was a reason that FES here chose to claim that the sense of Gravity that you feel comes from the UA, not Einstein's concept of gravity. Quite simply GR would predict on a finite FE that objects would be pulled toward the NP. Simply experiments with just high school lab equipment quickly disprove this FET model.

(In case it's not obvious to you, if you're standing south of the NP there's more earth north of you than south. Since gravity is based on the product of the attracting masses, there's more pulling you north than south. The net force would pull you towards the NP.)

BTW, John Davis's infinite plane model with normal gravity fails quickly too. If you work the formulas, you find that you would experience the same force on the surface of the FE and a thousand miles above it. Since reality disagrees, his model fails.

Flat Earth Debate / Wiki Critique: Occam's Razor
« on: March 15, 2012, 07:27:10 PM »
Let's continue our critique of the FE Wiki.

Refer to:

This entry fails. Indeed it fails miserably. OR is not about choosing the "simplest explanation". Please learn what it does say here:

We reject FET because it is disproved several ways or non-falsifiable, no matter how simple it may seem.

Disproved ways include: NASA images with provenance, flight data, GPS results, radio wave propagation limits, Foucault's Pendulums, and many more.
Non-falsifiable includes: The Conspiracy.

Roundy especially should be able to see this experiment tonight:

Let's look at one of FET's most damning problems. FET fails to predict.

In this thread, let's concentrate on the planet Neptune.

A careful review here: determined that indeed French mathematician Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier had indeed hypothesized the correct position of the yet-undiscovered (but already seen) planet.

Dr. Meeus's work in, Chapters 30 and 31 in particular, shows us how RET predicts Neptune's position.

A easy-to-use calculator based on these algorithms (and their improvements) is here:

USNO lists twelve years' of confirmed observations of Neptune by the Flagstaff Astrometric Scanning Transit Telescope here:

Explaining and Predicting the Motion of Mars as Seen from Earth: RET does it very well. FET can't.

Indeed, RET has predicted its location in the Earth's sky consistently and accurately for hundreds of years. Thousands of observations match the predictions. Indeed FET can predict the location of the larger moons of the solar system. Observations match RET's prediction.

FET provides only that planets revolve around the Sun and argue that explains retrograde motion. They provide no math, no logic, and no useful explanations. FET fails.

Flat Earth Debate / Parallactic Angle
« on: February 21, 2012, 12:39:30 PM »
Tom Bishop's recent "green arrow in the sky" post has prompted me to point out this damning problem with FET.

As an object moves across the sky, its orientation to a stationary observer changes. In reality, it appears to rotate clockwise. In RET, it appears to rotate clockwise. In FET, it would appear to rotate counterclockwise.

Not only that but Dr. Meeus shows the calculation to determine the angle of that rotation, based on the object moving in a apparent orbit around the Earth. Please reference Chapter 13 of

What's great about this failure of FET is you can see it for yourself very easily. The Moon is the best object, but amateur astronomists with a good telescope, like Tom Bishop's alleged reflector, can observe this with many other objects, particular Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. A careful observer would see sunspots (if the Sun is in an 'active' mode--as it is now) rotate in his or her view of the Sun. This also works with constellations. Orion's belt stars point more down on the east side at their rising than at their setting, for example.

So anytime on a clear day/night, look at the Moon at moon rise, zenith, and setting. You'll have great, first-hand evidence that FET is false.

If you need to know the times of those three events for the Sun or Moon on any given day, check out

For the constellations, it will vary with the time of year, so just pick out a prominent constellation in the east at dusk and watch it.

For the planets, if you know how to use a telescope to see them, then you know how already.

Flat Earth Q&A / RET's Prediction: The Phase of the Moon
« on: February 17, 2012, 09:05:08 AM »
Tom Bishop contends that RET doesn't make any accurate predictions. I contend that FET makes no predictions.

Let's take one easy to verify prediction, the phase of the Moon. RET's prediction is based on the relative positions of the Earth, Sun and Moon over the 28+ day orbit of the Moon about the Earth.

So, RET predicts tonight that the Moon will be:


Please set your alarms for about an hour before sunrise and check this prediction. Thanks.

Flat Earth Q&A / Photographic Evidence that the Earth is a globe
« on: February 01, 2012, 11:17:29 PM »
I though I'd start a thread and then try to contribute a photo every day or so demonstrating that the Earth is a globe.

So to start, please reference:

Flat Earth Debate / Belt of Venus Shows the Earth a Globe
« on: January 02, 2012, 10:14:33 PM »
This is a wonderful piece of RE evidence. Everyone anywhere can at least several times a year can see the evidence right in their own backyard. As the Sun rises the Earth's shadow is cast on its own atmosphere. Remember of course that the shadow is opposite the Sun, so you should be looking west. The shadow will 'fall' until it disappears. Also the shadow is curved just like RET predicts. Here's one great panoramic shot:

Here's an image for the same site with both the Belt of Venus and a partially eclipsed Moon.

Of course, the opposite occurs at sunset with the shadow to the east and rising. References: and

So this evidence does not rely on NASA in the least. So this evidence is available to everyone. So I guess we'll have to expect the FEers to 1) ostrich, 2) special plead, maybe more extra-special mirrors, or 3) both.

The Lounge / Neil deGrasse Tyson for President
« on: December 21, 2011, 10:32:42 PM »

Flat Earth Debate / Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« on: December 19, 2011, 11:14:00 AM »
I contend:
The outer planets go through a RET-predicted period of retrograde motion every year or so. You can observe this motion over the course of a two-year period from most any location on Earth for all five outer planets.

FET does not explain nor predict this motion.

RET does a great job both explaining and predicting this motion.

Quote from:
When combined with the refinements of Kepler (elliptical orbits with the sun at one focus, relationships between distance from sun and orbital speed - both within a single orbit and between orbits) this does, in fact, provide the correct explanation for the observed retrograde motion along with precise predictions of the positions of the planets.

Suggestions & Concerns / When Should a Thread Be Closed?
« on: December 12, 2011, 12:21:28 PM »
Coming from:;topicseen#new

When should a tread be closed?

Almost never....

If it's off-topic, move it.

If it's being hijacked, warn the offenders and split it if the second topic stands on its own.

If it's idle, leave it alone. Someone may join in the next hour and have something worthwhile to contribute. Just because you're bored with a topic does not justify closing the thread. Exhausted or uninteresting threads will effectively close themselves by the 'free market' through apathy and attrition.

If it's spam, warn the offenders and then delete it.

If it's porn, hateful, or otherwise offensive, warn the offenders and then delete it.

Regarding warnings... I suggest fewer in-thread warnings to individuals. Warning or reminding everyone may still be appropriate in a thread.

Regarding arguing about mediation, don't do it in any forum save S&C--whether you're a plebeian or moderator.


The Lounge / MythBusters' History
« on: December 11, 2011, 01:49:06 PM »
Then you know that the myth busters didn't say it happened, but rather implied.
Nope. They were quite specific that the landings did happen. Indeed they confirmed one confirmed "Myth" that Apollo astronauts had been to the Moon.
"The Apollo astronauts left behind special equipment on the Moon like reflectors that scientists can bounce lasers off of.
The Mythbusters went to an observatory equipped with a high powered laser. They first fired at the bare lunar surface but did not detect the laser bouncing back. Then they pointed the laser at a reflector left behind by NASA and received a confirmed bounce."
Please stay on topic.

Flat Earth Debate / Tonight's Lunar Eclipse is "Impossible"
« on: December 09, 2011, 12:14:31 AM »
I encourage our members in the "zone", basically the western North America, to observe the eclipse around sunrise (for PST). While every lunar eclipse provides some viewers the opportunity to see an eclipse while the Sun is still up, many can see this effect this time. A reference for the laymen:
. For the more educated on astronomy:

For those who like to laugh at Robotham, you'll find his lame logic starting at: I encourage those with an open mind to find the flaw in his "shadows bend down" argument as an exercise. You should be able to find it easily. +1 for the first to post it cogently here.

More demonstrative results that the Earth rotates... Please reference:

In additional to confirming once again that the Earth rotates, the authors describe how to build your own FP in a smaller (large classroom) sized lab.

Flat Earth Debate / UA is false based on new evidence
« on: November 16, 2010, 10:15:22 PM »
The UA should produce a gravitational field uniform within the atmosphere of Earth, yet precise measures show that the gravitation decreases with an increase of altitude as little as 1 meter near the Earth's surface and by the quantity predicted by RET, but not predicted by FET.

Also if we accept Username's analysis of a finite 'g' for an infinite FE slab, then that model also predicts a uniform gravitation.

Hence the evidence again supports RET over all models of FET.


Flat Earth Debate / Japan obtains samples from space
« on: November 16, 2010, 09:14:01 PM »
Further evidence of sustained space travel and RET comes from Japan's JAXA's mission Hayabusa. Scientific analysis shows that the craft successfully returned to Earth particles from the asteroid Itokawa in a seven-year mission.


Flat Earth Debate / Evidence that Sunsets are correctly described by RET
« on: November 16, 2010, 05:28:44 AM »
Please reference:

Here we see from another planet how its sunset appears. Note that the disc of the Sun disappears below the horizon. So on a round planet, this is how a sunset looks, just like it does on Earth.

Flat Earth Debate / Proof: The Earth is Round
« on: November 13, 2010, 01:19:43 AM »
Simple proof:

Hypothesis: Three observers appropriately located will determine that Earth is round (north to south)

Previously determined fact: EAT is false.

Place three observers at least 3,000 miles apart on the same longitude and altitude above mean sea level at local noon on the same time and day. Each measures the angle to the Sun at that time.

Result: Each reports a significant different angle than the other two. The three angles will not agree as to the location of the Sun assuming the Earth is flat.

Conclusion: The Earth is round.

Hypothesis: Three observers appropriately located will determine that Earth is round (east to west)

Previously determined fact: EAT is false. The Earth is round (north to south).

Place three observers at least 3,000 miles apart on the same latitude and altitude above mean sea level during daylight hours for all on the same UT. Each measures the angle to the Sun at that time.

Result: Each reports a significant different angle than the other two. The three angles will not agree as to the location of the Sun assuming the Earth is flat.

Conclusion: The Earth is round.

Flat Earth Debate / FET is a bad theory--so inconsistent
« on: November 11, 2010, 11:48:12 AM »
REers correctly argue that FET is inconsistent and that makes it a bad theory. Science expects and indeed condones competing theories. However, the competing theorists should quickly determine a bevy of experiments to determine which is right.

FET suffers from worse than unresolved competing theories. It's internally inconsistent.

One great example is Tom Bishop's wiki about the distance from the Earth to the Sun. He choses the latitude of 45o, Any other latitude provides a different result.

Another great example would be excuses we hear about the "sinking ship" evidence. "Bendy light" and perspective conflict in trying to explain the evidence.

Next we keep seeing a substitution tactics. When we argue that an infinite FE can't have finite mass, John Davis invokes math of a perfectly flat disc. When we argue that model would mean that 'g' would not vary with altitude, as is observed, John Davis say the same model doesn't apply because the FE is perfectly flat.

A good model is internally and externally consistent. FET is not.

Flat Earth Debate / Given two threads, we now know that the Earth is round
« on: November 01, 2010, 12:36:20 AM »
Two topics (both rather current) taken together prove that the Earth is round.

The first topic started by JamesJamie is: Coriolis Effect Proves Earth's Rotation.

The second topic that I started is: All FE models that have the FE spinning are wrong.

So the Earth spins and no FE model can have the Earth spinning. FET is false.

Flat Earth Debate / All FE models that have the FE spinning are wrong
« on: October 31, 2010, 02:37:53 PM »
Let's assume the evidence is correct:
1) The Coriolis Effect is correct.
2) The Foucault Pendulum is correct.

Let's assume that the FE is inflexible about its spin axis.

#1 tells us that an observer on the NP would detect a spin of 360o/day (roughly).
#1 and 2 also tells us that that the Earth spin distance decreases the farther south of the Equator the observer is.

We can conclude that an FE spin is not possible.

Flat Earth Debate / Science Proves Infinite Slab Model False
« on: October 17, 2010, 11:48:19 AM »
The infinite slab FET has a constant acceleration due to gravity (g). However, experiments, peer-reviewed, demonstrate that RE predictions of its reduction with altitude are accurate.

Please reference:

I say it's given by the following:

A sphere? A disc?

Flat Earth Debate / Quark+Anti-quark Model of the Sun is false
« on: October 10, 2010, 05:00:47 AM »
Parsifal proposes that the Sun is a big ball of quarks and anti-quarks with an atmosphere of hydrogen and helium.

This model is false.

A particle and its anti-particle attract and annihilate each other immediately unless kept apart by extraordinary means. Parsifal's suggestion that it's the Strong Force that does this is false. The Strong Force is repulsive at nuclear distances only (preventing the collapse or combination of hadrons) and easily overwhelmed by the EM force for quarks and anti-quarks at these distances.

Flat Earth Debate / Next Assaults on FE
« on: October 05, 2010, 08:06:35 AM »
I invite REers to map a strategy for knocking off the last of the FET variations. I believe that thanks to EG's prompting, we destroyed the UA. (Requiring 10^2,300,000 joules to accelerate a single proton for 1 nanosecond at the required g is just beyond consideration!)

So that means that all finite FETs can't resolve the problem of gravity.

So that leaves both Wilmore's (inane) model with Antarctica as a continent and Davis's (inane) model with an Ice Wall.

I don't think that any other FEer supports Wilmore. (The model really is too stupid to support.) So let's consider it DOA.

Now Davis model needs some review... Here are its problems:

1) Constellations to the observers in the south looking south are not consistent.
2) The Sun's illumination from the Fall Equinox to the Spring Equinox is bizarre.
3) The model can't explain the variation in g with altitude
4) Ships appear to sink as they cross the horizon. Cities appear top first to returning seamen.
5) The Sun should have fallen to Earth as it's affected by the standard acceleration even at 1 AU.
6) Equilibrium of temperature, atmosphere containment, and atmosphere composition are all problems.

Please let me know of other that you've considered and please help me assign priorities to the attack.


Flat Earth General / Verifiable Objective Evidence of Apollo 11
« on: September 28, 2010, 07:14:53 PM »
Evidence with attribution....
Evidence recorded in two locations....
Evidence backed up by witness testimony....


RET better than FET -- Check


Pages: [1] 2