To the fifth point I completely understand the point of advocating things that you believe to be true, but when it comes to matters of science there has to be some substance. Science doesn't just hope at things and then endorse them. The community endorses a theory to be true but is willing to reject it for a new theory when new science supports a better explanation. This has happened with the idea of a flat earth, but for some reason proponents hold on to the theory with what I've chosen to describe as faith. I use the term faith because confidence in FET is substantiated with little scientific proof.
To the fourth, I don't call everything that I disagree with stupid and resent the implication. I called it junk science because it promotes the idea of aether and bastardizes dark energy, which hypothetically is responsible for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, not that on Earth. Actual gravitation, and the laws and constants associated with it, provide clear and accurate predictions. As such, universal acceleration is not "nearly as credible as the theory of gravity".
To the third, I've spent a great deal of time searching this site the last few days and the conspiracies are wildly unsubstantiated and speculative. There is no hard evidence of a great cover-up and any possible motivations for the conspiracy make little to no sense to me. I would actually appreciate more information here. I'm not being close-minded, you are offering a paradigm shifting theory that the entire scientific community is supposedly covering up and I require very specific and unquestionable evidence to give this idea any sort of credence; as should any skeptic.
To the second, you said "...many endorse FET because the evidence in favor outweighs the evidence against.", but the evidence for, again, is largely refuted science. The Bedford Experiment, for example, is easily repeated and has been debunked by many. I can't call it anything other than junk science if the scientific community does the same. In fact, I have access to a large straight drainage canal and may just perform the experiment myself soon, but I suppose that would just be another "primitive experiment". FET simply does NOT have as much evidence in its favor than it does against.
And finally, to my first point, it's not "my" Mercator map because it's not a map; it is a useful projection of the earth that admittedly distorts the size of many locations near the poles. The map offered by FE theorists, however, does not admit to its flaws and suggests grossly inflated distances between locations in the southern hemisphere, distances that are easily proven false. Because I may need a search engine to find the dimensions of Australia doesn't make them any less real. If that were the case then all search engines would be entirely useless. The Earth is not too large to map because we have unless,I suppose, cartographers are also in on the hoax.
In regards to LORAN, I acknowledge that it was used, but it's not used anymore. I never asked for "FETs explanation for something that RET explains with satellites". I wanted to know how you explain how you believe GPS works because it isn't done by LORAN; this is simply a fact. I understand that LORAN does work, but GPS works better.
A picture of Antarctica that proves the Earth is round? Well I can show you a picture of Antarctica that proves it isn't a giant wall of ice that circles our entire planet. Do you have any that do?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=satellite+pictures+of+AntarcticaYou claim that I'm just saying "I'm right. You're wrong", but I have a legitimate reason for that. What I'm postulating is within the bounds of current knowledge while FET is based around medieval thought, conspiracy theories, and science which does not stand to much scrutiny. As such, I believe that the burden is on you to provide solid evidence for a theory that has little to no support. For FET to gain any sort of believably you have to offer something other than speculation and you have to be willing to throw out the theory if the evidence doesn't support it.
I'm a skeptic. I don't believe in most conspiracy theories because the little support that they have is typically speculative at best. I am legitimately interested in FET theory, but you have to look at it from my perspective. If I proposed that the path from your house to your mailbox were double its actual length you'd probably be a bit confused. You'd want to now why I believed this and you'd want some evidence. You could say "Let's measure it." and you'd likely be confused, like user Scintific Method, when I suggested that your measurement was inconsistent even though you live there.
Show Posts