Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET

Quote from: ghazwozza on July 03, 2008, 05:30:06 AM

RE defines a "standard gravity" for convenience when quoting G-forces and the like. However, this doesn't mean that RE'ers think downward acceleration is constant all over the world all the time.

Wow, what a coincidence; so does FE!

Like I said, double standard.

There's a difference: RET defines standard gravity for convenience. FET needs gravity to be constant (which it isn't).

Quote from: ghazwozza on July 03, 2008, 05:30:06 AM

Quite right they don't. Variations in gravity are not some trivial detail that needs to be ironed out, they are (as far as I can tell) entirely incompatible with an accelerating Earth.

Assuming there are other possible explanations (which is essentially impossible), then you'd be right.

What? FET can't cope with the observed differences in downward acceleration.

Quote from: ghazwozza on July 03, 2008, 05:30:06 AM

Well, I gave the ISS as evidence that orbital spaceflight was possible. FET will have to offer some alternative explanation for how the ISS stays up there.

It's a stratellite; or it gets refueled mid-air or they land and launch another. They can utilize atmospheric conditions to launch a second one to keep up the course and timing.

It can't be. Read this and get back to me: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21674.msg434576#msg434576

There's a difference: RET defines standard gravity for convenience. FET needs gravity to be constant (which it isn't).

FET uses 1g for convenience as well considering they are using the standard. They don't need it to be constant because it isn't constant.

What? FET can't cope with the observed differences in downward acceleration.

No current explanation that satisfies skeptics = not being able to cope?

It can't be. Read this and get back to me: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21674.msg434576#msg434576

Well, as REers point out, there are stars that aren't seen in the Northern Hemisphere that can be in the Southern Hemisphere. Devoid of a cause in this instant, it's possible to have two ISSs, one for the North and one for the South. But I'm right about to leave so I haven't had too much time to think this out. I'll be back tomorrow.

Quote from: ghazwozza on July 03, 2008, 05:30:06 AM

What? FET can't cope with the observed differences in downward acceleration.

No current explanation that satisfies skeptics = not being able to cope?

It's quite an important one. I could say the Earth is actually a cube 1 mile on each side. Why can't we see this? Well, I haven't thought of an answer to that, but I'm sure one exists. You see? There are some questions that need to be answered before a theory is viable.

The mechanism (in FE) that provides downward acceleration is constant all over the world. Also, FE'ers reject gravitation by mass-energy. Downward acceleration is independant of mass, charge and velocity, so FET is going to have a serious problem explaining it.

Quote from: ghazwozza on July 03, 2008, 05:30:06 AM

It can't be. Read this and get back to me: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21674.msg434576#msg434576

Well, as REers point out, there are stars that aren't seen in the Northern Hemisphere that can be in the Southern Hemisphere. Devoid of a cause in this instant, it's possible to have two ISSs, one for the North and one for the South. But I'm right about to leave so I haven't had too much time to think this out. I'll be back tomorrow.

Hmm, I don't think that could explain it. I'll argue tomorrow.

Beg my pardon for straying off topic, but divito; how can you claim to be a nihilist and an existentialist?

Is it a joke, or are you clueless?

Anyway, the Earth IS flat. Because, I look out my window and it doesn't appear round (the degree to which it curves at that small area of the sphere is imperceivable to the human eye).

Just like my index finger is larger than my LCD monitor, because I can hold my index finger several millimetres away from my eyeball and it overlaps the monitor.

Also, the world is upside down. When I put my head between my legs the world appears upside down (well, relative to our common perception, with our head upright), it's just that we humans have our heads around the wrong way, so yeah.

I do know about astronomy. You're wrong.

LOL!  Every post I have seen by you about astronomy reveals that you are profoundly ignorant about real astronomy!  Merely quoting from Winship's ridiculous book to support your views further confirms that!

And you still have not been able to come up with a response to the observations I pointed out to you several times!