FE Theory Fails from the Beginning

Crustinator's FE model does not seem to have much support from the FE scientific community.  I was hoping for a more authoritative explanation.

Actually the majority of members here support my theories. If there was anything wrong with what I was saying then they would post a suitable counter. We can only take from the silence of 20071 members that I am correct, aside from the grumblings of a few dinosaurs who fail to understand what I am posting.

But what is more important is the support outside the site. I have many RL supporters who even stop me in the street to encourage me to post more.

Tides on the flat earth are caused by distortions in the spacetime field as Einstein proposed. This means that that earth sinks a little bit at high tide and lifts a little at high tide. The sinking of the earth causes the water level to raise and vice versa obviously. These flexings of the earth are what cause volcanos.

I'm not sure if this thread is dead or not but I have some queries about what you said Crust.
Doesn't this contradict the concept of Universal Acceleration?
1. How can you say the Earth sinks a little bit if it is universally accelerating? Sinking in relation to what?
2. If the Earth 'sunk' surely the seas would move along with it. What makes them such a separate entity?

Or do you mean that the Earth flexes locally? If so, what causes it; what causes these distortions in the space-time field? In a more traditional model surely gravity would be responsible for distortions of space-time, but there is none in this theory, right?
And specifically what causes tides so periodically, as we know tides can be easily predicted. And how is the Moon related to the tides(?), as we can see the position of the moon coincides with the tides.

Quote from: markjo on March 02, 2011, 01:23:17 PM

Crustinator's FE model does not seem to have much support from the FE scientific community.  I was hoping for a more authoritative explanation.

Actually the majority of members here support my theories. If there was anything wrong with what I was saying then they would post a suitable counter. We can only take from the silence of 20071 members that I am correct, aside from the grumblings of a few dinosaurs who fail to understand what I am posting.

But what is more important is the support outside the site. I have many RL supporters who even stop me in the street to encourage me to post more.

crusty you talk rubbish, making the FES into a greater laughing stock

Obviously this isn't going anywhere. After reading through the website, I observe the same thing again and again.

Time and again the RET is proven true by numerous facts and questions posed. And time and again the FETers avoid the question, answer with ignorance, or simply troll.

You all aren't worth wasting any more time on. When I came here, I thought maybe you all truly were open for debate and were truly interesting in determining the shape of the Earth. But now I can see you're only interesting in arguing or trolling.

You answer our legitimate questions with explanations of things that don't exist or haven't been proven, like spotlight suns, moonshrimp and magic.
You say read the FAQ for answers, the answers aren't even correct, and have zero backing, you say so yourselves!
You say read a book written by an FET believer, if we told you to read a book written by an Astronaut, you'd call it a conspiracy.

It's time to grow up folks, it's 2011. I can understand there being discrepancies in the 1600s, but it's the 21st century! People have been all over the world now and into space as well, we all know the Earth is round, watch the video log of a shuttle mission! How can you fake flying out of Earth's atmosphere? You can't.

If you all cannot even think for a moment that you may be wrong when hard evidence is waged against you time and again, then you're never going to change your mind. Therefore, this argument is moot, and this forum as well.

Have fun convincing each other the Earth is flat.

While I can't argue that there does seem to be a lot of misdirection and a seeming lack of willingness to adequately address legitimate questions from a FET perspective that I have found thus far (still new and still looking), to be fair, you did approach this as a trolling attempt first and with a closed mind whey you titled this as "FE Theory Fails from the Beginning"

By doing so, you have decided to be confrontational from the start instead of legitimately being willing to listen to another side as I am trying to do so.  Granted, I am such a firm believer in RET that it may be hard for me to digest some of these concepts, but since I'm technicaly the visitor to this site, I'm trying to remain curteous to those that believe in FET and gain a better understanding as to why there is popularity with and belief in FET.

Doesn't this contradict the concept of Universal Acceleration?

Very few FE believers believe in universal acceleration any more. Einstein disproved gravity. Therefore imposing the equivalence principle means that acceleration does not exist either. However we may feel the sensation of acceleration due to a change of frame of reference, but this is a mistake.

Einstein disproved gravity. Therefore imposing the equivalence principle means that acceleration does not exist either.

Einstein stated that in his model of GR that Gravity was not a force but rather was a bending of space/time.

Einstein never claimed that Gravity did not exist, but rather that since Gravity seemed to affect objects instantaneously (eg. faster than the speed of light), then it could not be functioning as a force in his model of GR (since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light according to GR).  Einstein also stated that the effects of constant acceleration were indistinguishable from the effects of gravity (equivalence principle).

Stating that gravity and acceleration does not exist is extremely and grossly erroneous if you are quoting Einstein since he never denied either of these as existing.  That would be your interpretation, not Einstein's.

Einstein never claimed that Gravity did not exist, but rather that since Gravity seemed to affect objects instantaneously (eg. faster than the speed of light), then it could not be functioning as a force in his model of GR (since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light according to GR).  Einstein also stated that the effects of constant acceleration were indistinguishable from the effects of gravity (equivalence principle).

Check me if I'm wrong, but Einstein predicted that gravity propagates at the speed of light (experimental evidence later supported this prediction).  Newton was the one who said that gravity was instant.

Quote from: Oracle on March 09, 2011, 09:37:13 PM

Einstein never claimed that Gravity did not exist, but rather that since Gravity seemed to affect objects instantaneously (eg. faster than the speed of light), then it could not be functioning as a force in his model of GR (since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light according to GR).  Einstein also stated that the effects of constant acceleration were indistinguishable from the effects of gravity (equivalence principle).

Check me if I'm wrong, but Einstein predicted that gravity propagates at the speed of light (experimental evidence later supported this prediction).  Newton was the one who said that gravity was instant.

I believe that you are correct in that he eventually arrived at that conclusion, however, when he was first postulating his ideas on GR (which is around the time when he started treating gravity as a warping of space/time) I think he was going off of Newton's assumption that it was instantaneous.

However, we are now arguing semantics (to some degree) at this point.  The assertion was made that Gravity does not exist in a RE model, and there are 63 pages on the sticky forum alone regarding Gravity that challenges and argues this point of view.

Einstein never disproved gravity, he never said that it did not exist, he just chose to look at it a little differently than as a force to help explain mathematically why the orbit of Mercury around the sun was significantly different than the orbits of other planets around the sun (it broke some of Newton's formulas).

Einstein was creating a more accurate model of the universe and how it behaved than Newton, but for all practical purposes, on the face of the planet, Newton was extremely accurate.  Today, quantum physics shows that Einstein's equations were not completely accurate at the quantum level.

But I digress, Gravity itself has not been dis-proven from a RE perspective and it is erroneous to say so.  The only thing that has changed is how Gravity is viewed.

The only thing that has changed is how Gravity is viewed.

No one has yet observed gravity. Not even the boffins underground.