The problem with FET

Contrary to what a lot of re'ers think, a lot of people here are interested by new theories and a lot of scientists are ready to change theories if they find a better one

if FET was a better one, many people would come to it; but it has too much blanks in it, to name a few:
– there is no FET map. at best, there are two which contradict themselves. and all the maps presented are projection from a globe. not from a flat surface
– there is no explanation of moon phases and eclipses, just a very vague idea of moonshrimps
– there is not consistent model explaining the motion of the planets, just a concept, celestial gears, never described

we all know that the ret model isn't perfect, but why should we get rid of a not perfect model to an even less perfect model?

we all know that the ret model isn't perfect, but why should we get rid of a not perfect model to an even less perfect model?

Because the earth is flat and right now your theory is all wrong.

Its harder to muster the energy to make any more of an effort to answer the OP. We have threads about maps and moon phases and models and planets. What are you hoping to discuss in this thread that makes it unique to the extent it warranted a new topic?

You asked one question in the OP. Our answer is because we are right and you are wrong.

Addendum: As for topics never being described, that's nonsense. You want celestial gears?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54755.msg1354535.html#msg1354535
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54581.msg1346374.html#msg1346374
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,49874.msg1224634.html#msg1224634
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55606.msg1387667.html#msg1387667

That's just a few I've done. Tom has explained it, Wilmore, Ichi, Pongo, Roundy. But we do get tired of explaining the same topics again and again. If you aren't getting an answer, its likely we discussed it not so long ago and don't fancy doing it again so soon. Read those threads. There's loads in there about celestial gears and you can then stop bleating that we haven't got any answers and actually assess the theory itself. The site does have a search function after all. Moon phases, eclipses, its all here.

many of your so-called proofs are disputale, many of your experiments are wrong and most of your asumption are based on unfounded concepts such as UA or bendy light.

if really you had answers, they'll be fully documented either in the wiki or in the Q&a. but the general answer is: read Enag (Tom bishop) or use the search engin or www.rif.org

or celestial gear: i still can't see an explanation of how they work. I understand the intricate clockwork of the retrograde motion of planets, but what' the forces behind that? what's the theory?

and what sums up fet: 2 different (ret) maps!

Haha, the theory doesn't have a lot of blanks, it's basically composed of blanks. No matter what specialist you are, if you go deep enough in your field, you will need to face the elementary forces of physics and forces produced by the environment always resulting in round earth.

Here's the old obvious one again: The star trajectories what we can see on north and south pole can only happen on the "tips" of the spinning sphere. Which means the earth must be spherical or reality is so distorted there really is no point to create any logic backed theories.

Maps are biggest issue... I'm still absolutely amazed at the excuses given when you say making a flat earth map on a flat surface isn't hard if it real... Mountains, or some other crap is given as reason, load of horse crap!

Haha, the theory doesn't have a lot of blanks, it's basically composed of blanks. No matter what specialist you are, if you go deep enough in your field, you will need to face the elementary forces of physics and forces produced by the environment always resulting in round earth.

wat?

there's no model for the formation of a fe, only wild guesses

the law of physics cannot explain how was created the fe

Thork, there are new people coming to these forums everyday. They see your answers to the problems with FET and apparently not satisfied with the answers because they keep asking the questions. The way I see it, you should either, seriously reconsider your position on FE, providing a model, map and predictions that can be varified, or you should relish in answering all these questions to every new member. After all, if you're right, you should be excited to articulate the wonders of FE to each new person so as to gain more support for your position. Instead, you always point to other threads, the FAQ, "use search," or read ENaG.

When will you and other FEers do what us roundies have done and provide a working model, an accurate map, and verifiable predictions? If FET wishes to be taken seriously, it must cut out the conspiracy crap and put forth some good scientific arguments in favor of a FE. Why is that so hard to grasp?

When will you and other FEers do what us roundies have done and provide a working model, an accurate map, and verifiable predictions? If FET wishes to be taken seriously, it must cut out the conspiracy crap and put forth some good scientific arguments in favor of a FE. Why is that so hard to grasp?

What accurate map  The one with the fake islands on it?

any re map is more accurate than a fe map (distances, southern hemisphere, etc)

Not only do FET maps, and models fail to provide accurate geography and predictions of celestial events, they constantly ignore the concept of zetetic observation.
The whole reason you say the Earth is flat is because you don't see curvature when they look out your window. Have you seen the celestial gears themselves? Have you seen the dark energy forces that accelerate the Earth upwards? These parts of your model are pulled out of thin air, and have no zetetic observation to base them on.

You pride yourselves on being skeptics and challenging the official story of RET;  yet you fail to apply any principals of skepticism to your own model, and fail to support your model with any evidence, zetetic or scientific. Instead you defend FET dogmatically like religious zealots.

I come back to this site hoping to see some progress in the FE model... maybe I'll try again in a year.

many of your so-called proofs are disputale, many of your experiments are wrong and most of your asumption are based on unfounded concepts such as UA or bendy light.

if really you had answers, they'll be fully documented either in the wiki or in the Q&a. but the general answer is: read Enag (Tom bishop) or use the search engin or www.rif.org

or celestial gear: i still can't see an explanation of how they work. I understand the intricate clockwork of the retrograde motion of planets, but what' the forces behind that? what's the theory?

and what sums up fet: 2 different (ret) maps!

Restating proof hundreds of times on the same website, as I'm sure you must acknowledge, would be extremely irking and a complete waste of time. What is wrong with following links to threads where the topics you ask of were already discussed? Also, keeping a full documentation of FET would be very difficult, as it is a developing theory and there are some aspects which are disagreeable. Can you link me a full documentation of RET?

Quote from: FlatulencE Theory on November 27, 2012, 07:45:57 AM

When will you and other FEers do what us roundies have done and provide a working model, an accurate map, and verifiable predictions? If FET wishes to be taken seriously, it must cut out the conspiracy crap and put forth some good scientific arguments in favor of a FE. Why is that so hard to grasp?

What accurate map  The one with the fake islands on it?

Yes, that map is far more accurate than any Flat earth map. Can you call a green (or black in google earth) spot a small human mistake? maybe, not that anyone lived or visited that island frecuently. How do you call it when distances between continents don't match with any real distances? a model issue? What about Antarctica? it doesn't match with any map of Antarctica made by actually traveling to the south pole, rather than sitting next to a blank paper thinking how to accommodate it into a flat earth.

Can you link me a full documentation of RET?

I think the guy is refering to books and scientific magazines. If you do not wish to go to a library or a bookshop, internet is here.

You could start with "A Short Story Of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.

Quote from: FlatulencE Theory on November 27, 2012, 07:45:57 AM

When will you and other FEers do what us roundies have done and provide a working model, an accurate map, and verifiable predictions? If FET wishes to be taken seriously, it must cut out the conspiracy crap and put forth some good scientific arguments in favor of a FE. Why is that so hard to grasp?

What accurate map  The one with the fake islands on it?

If you have a problem with a RE map, provide an alternative that is more accurate. So far, there is no FE map that meets this criteria.

Quote from: Science on November 28, 2012, 05:54:17 AM

Can you link me a full documentation of RET?

I think the guy is refering to books and scientific magazines. If you do not wish to go to a library or a bookshop, internet is here.

You could start with "A Short Story Of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.

I've taken a glance at this book and have noticed it falls very short of a unified description of RET, as it focuses on a description of more established aspects of science, such as the basic structure of the atom, and some weakly supported geological "facts".

That's a very basic book. I am sure you can do more readings.

Scientist don't publish papers on the Roundness of Earth for the same reason they don't publish papers on the Wetness of Water.

Scientist don't publish papers on the Roundness of Earth for the same reason they don't publish papers on the Wetness of Water.

Haven't you heard? Water is actually dry. 

Scientist don't publish papers on the Roundness of Earth for the same reason they don't publish papers on the Wetness of Water.

No. The shape of the Earth is actually debatable. The fact that you never come up with non-ad hominem arguments is your own problem.

Scientist don't publish papers on the Roundness of Earth for the same reason they don't publish papers on the Wetness of Water.

Actually, there is an entire branch of earth science dedicated to studying the shape of the earth.  It's called geodesy.

No. The shape of the Earth is actually debatable. The fact that you never come up with non-ad hominem arguments is your own problem.
[/quote]

To anyone with a modicum of education, the shape of the earth is not debatable.

To anyone with a modicum of education, the shape of the earth is not debatable.

And yet here you are, debating the shape of the earth. A frank and honest concession, I suppose.

Quote from: FlatulencE Theory on November 29, 2012, 09:14:45 AM

To anyone with a modicum of education, the shape of the earth is not debatable.

And yet here you are, debating the shape of the earth. A frank and honest concession, I suppose.

Forgive me, I failed to understand the finite level of literalness that must be maintained on this site. Debatable has several meanings. Science used it to say that the shape of the earth is still in question. To which I responded, no it is not. You used it to mean  the discussion we have trying to convince you that your FET is wrong.

My error is only in assuming that you could differentiate between the two. I stand corrected.

No. The shape of the Earth is actually debatable. The fact that you never come up with non-ad hominem arguments is your own problem.

To anyone with a modicum of education, the shape of the earth is not debatable.
[/quote]
To anyone with a modicum of education, rebuttal is preferable to personal attack. Maybe if you were to develop actual arguments, other than "you're stupid," it would be possible to persuade me. You can't however, so that is all just hypothetical.

Quote from: Father Luke Duke on November 28, 2012, 11:56:26 AM

Scientist don't publish papers on the Roundness of Earth for the same reason they don't publish papers on the Wetness of Water.

Haven't you heard? Water is actually dry. 

Yeah, I'm just starting a society and forum to promote this idea.  Want to join?

Quote from: Zurian on November 28, 2012, 03:10:46 PM

Quote from: Father Luke Duke on November 28, 2012, 11:56:26 AM

Scientist don't publish papers on the Roundness of Earth for the same reason they don't publish papers on the Wetness of Water.

Haven't you heard? Water is actually dry. 

Yeah, I'm just starting a society and forum to promote this idea.  Want to join?

Can we start a massive conspiracy when things start proving us wrong.... PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!