Time to Speak Out

#5.  O great your curved light theory. The one you came up with without and evidence.  The one that causes light to bend upwards for some unknown reason.

#6.  Light is not electro-magnetic.  Light and electrisity are 2 different things. 

Now off to your other thread. 

#5 Same evidence as Round Earth
#6. Where did you get that idea?  Did you sleep through physics classes?  "As it turns out, what is thought of as "light" is actually a propagating oscillatory disturbance in the electromagnetic field, i.e., an electromagnetic wave. Different frequencies of oscillation give rise to the different forms of electromagnetic radiation": Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism

#4. In a round Earth light doesn't bend on its own.
#6.  I don't know what I was thinking.  Light is electromagnetic waves.  But electricity is electrons where as light is photons. 

4. In FE, the Earth doesn't bend on its own - ok, silly come back, but so's yours - of course FE theory has to be different - it can hardly have exactly the same physics and a flat earth, unless you want to go for all these conspiracy theories, which I don't.
6. I'm not sure how the electrons affect the argument.  The magnetic field, which is what you raised as the counter-argument is definitely a component of the electromagnetic field and is mediated by photons.  I'd be happy to discuss electrons if you show how they're relevant.

4. In FE, the Earth doesn't bend on its own - ok, silly come back, but so's yours - of course FE theory has to be different - it can hardly have exactly the same physics and a flat earth, unless you want to go for all these conspiracy theories, which I don't.
6. I'm not sure how the electrons affect the argument.  The magnetic field, which is what you raised as the counter-argument is definitely a component of the electromagnetic field and is mediated by photons.  I'd be happy to discuss electrons if you show how they're relevant.

It's mediated by photons. That does not mean that a magnet can bend light.  What he's saying is that you decided you'd make a theory because a previous theory (which is also not wellgrounded) would not work without overhauling well-documented physical proportions.  You fit a theory to a theory, not a theory to observations.  That's neither science nor blind faith, it's just stupid.

You fit a theory to a theory, not a theory to observations.  That's neither science nor blind faith, it's just stupid.

RE fits new theories into existing theories all the time.

See:

String Theory
Special Relativity
Newtonian Optics
Conservation of Mass
Celestial Mechanics
Kepler's Laws
Plate Tectonics
Theory for the form of the earth, including isostacy

Quote

You fit a theory to a theory, not a theory to observations.  That's neither science nor blind faith, it's just stupid.

RE fits new theories into existing theories all the time.

See:

String Theory
Special Relativity
Newtonian Optics
Conservation of Mass
Celestial Mechanics
Kepler's Laws
Plate Tectonics
Theory for the form of the earth, including isostacy

Are you trying to say those theories (with the possible exception of string theory and special relativity - which I don't know enough about to say) aren't rooted in observations?  I really hope you're not...

Quote

You fit a theory to a theory, not a theory to observations.  That's neither science nor blind faith, it's just stupid.

RE fits new theories into existing theories all the time.

See:

String Theory
Special Relativity
Newtonian Optics
Conservation of Mass
Celestial Mechanics
Kepler's Laws
Plate Tectonics
Theory for the form of the earth, including isostacy

Last time I checked, the RE isnt a theory, so stop calling it that. the FE is a theory, you guys are going against what is already proven.

Last time I checked, the RE isnt a theory, so stop calling it that. the FE is a theory, you guys are going against what is already proven.

They're both technically theories, because there are holes in both, regardless of how big each of those holes is.

Are you trying to say those theories (with the possible exception of string theory and special relativity - which I don't know enough about to say) aren't rooted in observations?  I really hope you're not...

Are you implying that the idea for a Flat Earth isn't rooted in observations?

The Phiosopher


1. Current weather patterns can only exist on a spherical Earth.  I know for a fact, I am a weather forecaster.   search these words: 'Coriolis Effect' 'comma cloud'
No, only rotation: just because someone thinks the Earth is flat doesn't mean the disk doesn't rotate.
 ***A rotating disk would not produce the same effect as a spherical Earth.  The Coriolis effect is stronger at the poles than the equator
 because it is spherical.  In fact, coriolis is nil at the equator. 

2. A spherical Juipter can be observed rotating through any good telescope.
So what? This is the flat Earth society, not the flat Jupiter society.
***My point was that why is Erath flat if all the other planets are spheres.

3. A spherical rotating Sun can be observed through any good telescope.
So what? This is the flat Earth society, not the flat Sun society.  See my post on "The sun rises unblocked." p3 for why FE doesn't need spotlight sun, flat sun or anything but the observed (slightly oblate), rotating spherical sun
***Same point.

4. Time slows down as you approach the speed of light, therefore if the Earth is constantly accelerating, we would be at a stand still in time by now.  And since we can't go the speed of light unless we become energy, then when we reach the max speed, will everything float off the Earth into outerspace?  That's just a ridiculous notion.
Only relative to an outside observer travelling at speed of light relative to us.  Relativity allows for a constantly accelerating body - in fact the time dilation effect is exactly to allow that - the slowing of time and contracting of space is what allows apparent constant acceleration to generate speeds which only approach the speed of light asymptotically.
***My point here is that matter has a speed limit.  Once the Earth reaches that top speed, what will happen to the flat-earth theory source of gravity(given the unbeleif in gravity by FEers)

5. How many millions of people would it really take to "cover up" everything as a government conspiracy?
You don't have to believe in a conspiracy to believe in FE.  My curved light theory explains things without it.
***So if no conspiracy, then why don't you beleive all the NASA pictures and videos?

6. The Earth's magnetic field can only exist with a sphere with a core of iron as it is.  A flat Earth would have a very different magnetic field.
No, it can get by with a sheet of iron, together with my curved light theory (remember light is electro-magnetic, so the theory includes magnetism as well as light)  Details on the "Why ships' hulls disappear, photos from space and other mysteries" thread
***Magnets have north and south poles.  That can't be generated by a flat sheet having a north pole in the center of the sheet.

7. The shadow on the moon cast by the sun clearly shows that it is a sphere.  Can you get more obvious than that?
Also explained by curved light - diagram will appear on above mentioned thread tomorrow
***What do you suggest curves the light since FEers don't believe in gravity which is the most powerful way to curve light?

8. Perhaps the Flat Earth Society is really an elaborate government conspiracy to distract society from their real cover ups.
It must be working, you have been distracted.
***Since you don't beleive in government conspiracies about this subject anyway this is a dead point.

9. Or Perhaps the Flat Earth Society is just an arena to develop one's debate skills.  That would make sense since a good debator can argue any points, even obviously ridiculous ones.
OK, so let's see if you're any good - how would you argue Flat Earth?
***I would say that no one can prove or disprove a beleif, by its very nature.  That's what you have done by choosing to not
beleive in a Round-Earth.  After that it wouldn't matter what my arguments would be. 

10. Bubbles and raindrops are undeniable examples of how objects behave naturally.
No doubt.  So are salt cubes.
***So you're saying the Earth is some 3- dimensional object other than that of a disk?  If so, why anything else than a sphere?

If you really want to bring yourself out of darkness, take these points into consideration.
Done.  See above rebuttals.

***You're not out of darkness yet.

***You're not out of darkness yet.

Why don't you check who you're quoting.

Are you implying that the idea for a Flat Earth isn't rooted in observations?

Of course it's rooted in observations.  However, you take those observations and draw conclusions, without any reason (empirical evidence) behind doing so. 

My main point was that Eric the Red is redefining physics from in front of his computer.  Are you agreeing with his methodology in formulating new theories on optics just because there's a hole in the FE theory that can be explained by his proposed theory?

Is this typed in English?

Quote from: Maus on March 02, 2007, 09:53:55 AM

hmm...Traditionally, tears and rain drops have been drawn has roundbottomed cones...like a sphere that's been pinned out on top and stretched...

And wrong.

but they're so pretty...

CORRECTION TO PREVIOUS MIGHTYFLETCH POST:

REPLY NOT MEANT FOR THE PHILOSOPHER, RATHER ERIC THE RED.  SORRY ABOUT THE MISQUOTE.

Quote

You fit a theory to a theory, not a theory to observations.  That's neither science nor blind faith, it's just stupid.

RE fits new theories into existing theories all the time.

See:

String Theory
Special Relativity
Newtonian Optics
Conservation of Mass
Celestial Mechanics
Kepler's Laws
Plate Tectonics
Theory for the form of the earth, including isostacy

hmm, add hundreds of pictures and videos to that list too 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 02, 2007, 08:43:37 PM

Quote

You fit a theory to a theory, not a theory to observations.  That's neither science nor blind faith, it's just stupid.

RE fits new theories into existing theories all the time.

See:

String Theory
Special Relativity
Newtonian Optics
Conservation of Mass
Celestial Mechanics
Kepler's Laws
Plate Tectonics
Theory for the form of the earth, including isostacy

hmm, add hundreds of pictures and videos to that list too 

"Hundreds"?  Try "millions".

Quote from: The Government on March 03, 2007, 08:06:56 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 02, 2007, 08:43:37 PM

Quote

You fit a theory to a theory, not a theory to observations.  That's neither science nor blind faith, it's just stupid.

RE fits new theories into existing theories all the time.

See:

String Theory
Special Relativity
Newtonian Optics
Conservation of Mass
Celestial Mechanics
Kepler's Laws
Plate Tectonics
Theory for the form of the earth, including isostacy

hmm, add hundreds of pictures and videos to that list too 

"Hundreds"?  Try "millions".

well, i dont think there are millions of videos, thats why i said hundreds... but yea there are millions of pictures

Quote from: Pyrochimp on March 03, 2007, 08:12:56 AM

Quote from: The Government on March 03, 2007, 08:06:56 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 02, 2007, 08:43:37 PM

Quote

You fit a theory to a theory, not a theory to observations.  That's neither science nor blind faith, it's just stupid.

RE fits new theories into existing theories all the time.

See:

String Theory
Special Relativity
Newtonian Optics
Conservation of Mass
Celestial Mechanics
Kepler's Laws
Plate Tectonics
Theory for the form of the earth, including isostacy

hmm, add hundreds of pictures and videos to that list too 

"Hundreds"?  Try "millions".

well, i dont think there are millions of videos, thats why i said hundreds... but yea there are millions of pictures

thousands of videos?