Unanswered FE questions

  • 72 Replies
  • 12125 Views
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Unanswered FE questions
« on: April 25, 2007, 04:41:02 PM »
1. The sun is too small to have fusion that had to have lasted for the past 4.5 billion years.

2. Gravity is the 'force' containing the enormous pressure in stars. Without it stars would not form and existing ones would supernova.

3. The sun's radiation, as measured in Spectroscopy, is way too high to be that close (3,000 miles) without the Earth being uninhabitable.

4. The sun would appear to be an oval from an angle if it were in fact flat. Fusion can't take place in a flat star. If not flat (make up your minds), why does it act like a spotlight?

5. The sun would have to accelerate exponentially to appear to set from one view point yet other view points on the globe would contradict this view.

6. As the distance of the sun gets larger, the angle of sight for the sun decreases asymptotically to zero degrees. Since the human eye is not absolutely perfect, we will be overly generous in our experiment and say that a one degree angle over this vast difference wouldn't be seen. Suppose we also generously let the suns distance reach its maximum of the diameter of the Earth continuing to favor your side. 24,900 miles long 3,000 miles high makes the angle to see the sun as 6.86999 degrees. This would make the sun seem to approach the horizon but not get close enough to mistake it for setting. Keep in mind, that this also used a distance much greater than your theory allows with timezones.

Oog the caveman gave this point:

7.Illuminated clouds appear before sunrise over the curvature of the Earth.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2007, 04:42:35 PM »
Something else to consider: at sunrise, clouds are clearly illuminated from the east, before the surface of the earth receives direct sunlight. This is because the sun is shining over the horizon at an indirect angle, as such:


A spotlight that was shining "down" onto the Earth, such as the one in the FE model, would actually cause the land to be illuminated before the clouds overhead, because spotlights create a cone of light that expands as it shines downwards. This is easily observed by standing near a spotlight in the street that is pointing straight down. The light would project a cone, like so:


Raise your hand directly above your head and it will be out of direct light, while your feet will be illuminated. This phenomenon does not occur on Earth. That is - a cloud is never outside of direct sunlight while the ground below is in direct sunlight.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2007, 04:51:30 PM »
I have heard the response to number 1 on that list, that the sun could have lasted so long by being more compact. It would have to be 731,268,011 times more dense to sustain this fusion in which case:

The UA would accelerate it differently since a force accelerates objects of different mass... differently. (oddly worded, I know)

The Gravitation of the sun would pull the planet apart if it was only 3,000 miles away.


A message to all:
Please refrain from regressing in your behavior. It makes serious topics harder to discuss.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2007, 05:08:46 PM »
I will be back tomorrow night.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2007, 10:42:43 AM »
1. The sun is too small to have fusion that had to have lasted for the past 4.5 billion years.
*answered*

2. Gravity is the 'force' containing the enormous pressure in stars. Without it stars would not form and existing ones would supernova.
opinion.

3. The sun's radiation, as measured in Spectroscopy, is way too high to be that close (3,000 miles) without the Earth being uninhabitable.
Why?

4. The sun would appear to be an oval from an angle if it were in fact flat. Fusion can't take place in a flat star. If not flat (make up your minds), why does it act like a spotlight?
*answered*

5. The sun would have to accelerate exponentially to appear to set from one view point yet other view points on the globe would contradict this view.
Explain.

6. As the distance of the sun gets larger, the angle of sight for the sun decreases asymptotically to zero degrees. Since the human eye is not absolutely perfect, we will be overly generous in our experiment and say that a one degree angle over this vast difference wouldn't be seen. Suppose we also generously let the suns distance reach its maximum of the diameter of the Earth continuing to favor your side. 24,900 miles long 3,000 miles high makes the angle to see the sun as 6.86999 degrees. This would make the sun seem to approach the horizon but not get close enough to mistake it for setting. Keep in mind, that this also used a distance much greater than your theory allows with timezones.
*answered*

Oog the caveman gave this point:

7.Illuminated clouds appear before sunrise over the curvature of the Earth.
This is the same answer as number 6. (*answered*)

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2007, 10:48:05 AM »
The same horizon illusion due to the earths acceleration also explains the cloud effect.

*

sokarul

  • 16787
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2007, 10:48:27 AM »
Nacrberry we want the right answers.  We arnt looking for the made up answers.  
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 64544
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2007, 10:48:51 AM »
Nacrberry we want the right answers.  We arnt looking for the made up answers.  

Then you're not looking in the right place ;D
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2007, 10:50:12 AM »
A message to all:
Please refrain from regressing in your behavior. It makes serious topics harder to discuss.

(I think he's talking to you sokurle)

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #9 on: April 26, 2007, 03:52:41 PM »
No seriously. You answer goes nowhere to explaining what's going on, and your 'falling light' was very successfully debunked by me in another thread. An object's light would only crash into the Earth if it started 0.3mm above the ground and travelled its entire diameter. Light crashing just does not occur, it is not mathematically feasible.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #10 on: April 26, 2007, 04:59:52 PM »
Why can't you answer me seriously? These topics were being discussed previously and when I starting winning, you ran away. I posted messages to gain your attention and when you were directly lead back to the threads, you claimed that you didn't see any conflicting problems with the evidence against FE because it was to cluttered. Bishop then asked me to start a new thread to clear it up. Now this thread presents the evidence in a logical consistent fashion and you only say that it has been answered. Your responses to several points are exactly the same as the posts in the earlier threads. Now you also state them as "answered".  >:(

This makes it clear that you do not intend to defend FE with unbiased reasoning and logic. You simply state the alleged facts without being able to back them up. I am sick of this. Should you change your mind and want to seriously use the scientific method and common sense to debate correctly, then stop posting half-ass, flawed, vague responses to legitimate questions.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #11 on: April 26, 2007, 05:15:53 PM »
1. The sun is too small to have fusion that had to have lasted for the past 4.5 billion years.
*answered*
Only if you admit that the sun is super dense and therefore has much more mass.
Quote
2. Gravity is the 'force' containing the enormous pressure in stars. Without it stars would not form and existing ones would supernova.
opinion.
Wrong. It is fact in the absolute respect of science. The laws of physics are not interchangeable or applied to reality when it is convenient for you.
Quote
3. The sun's radiation, as measured in Spectroscopy, is way too high to be that close (3,000 miles) without the Earth being uninhabitable.
Why?
Like I stated earlier: SUPER INTENSE RADIATION ACROSS THE ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM IS BAD FOR ORGANIC CELLS! DEATH IS THE SIDE EFFECT IN THIS EXTREME OF A CIRCUMSTANCE!
Quote
4. The sun would appear to be an oval from an angle if it were in fact flat. Fusion can't take place in a flat star. If not flat (make up your minds), why does it act like a spotlight?
*answered*

Not answered. You say the Sun is round but only emits light from a flatten surface on it. A lot more is to be discussed here!

Quote
5. The sun would have to accelerate exponentially to appear to set from one view point yet other view points on the globe would contradict this view.
Explain.

Very well. The sun appears to travel at a constant speed across the sky. Yet, as it allegedly moves parallel to the surface of the Earth, the angle from the ground slows as it gets farther away. This means that in order to compensate for the effect that it seems to revolve around the Earth at a constant speed, a FE sun would have to accelerate to get close to the horizon at the same change in angle per minute from an observer watching it set.

Quote
6. As the distance of the sun gets larger, the angle of sight for the sun decreases asymptotically to zero degrees. Since the human eye is not absolutely perfect, we will be overly generous in our experiment and say that a one degree angle over this vast difference wouldn't be seen. Suppose we also generously let the suns distance reach its maximum of the diameter of the Earth continuing to favor your side. 24,900 miles long 3,000 miles high makes the angle to see the sun as 6.86999 degrees. This would make the sun seem to approach the horizon but not get close enough to mistake it for setting. Keep in mind, that this also used a distance much greater than your theory allows with timezones.
*answered*

I was discussing this in the earlier thread. No one brought up that this was answered at all nor had any defense for it. If it was truly answered, please post a link to the thread as I can not find one.

By the way: Does this alleged answer say why the sun can visibly be seen to set abruptly from the pollution blocking our view? Or perhaps why it can be seen as a half circle on the horizon? It doesn't just approach the horizon. It gets cut in half by it as it sinks behind it. Refraction can not explain this like it could plausibly explain why it appears to touch.

Quote
Oog the caveman gave this point:

7.Illuminated clouds appear before sunrise over the curvature of the Earth.
This is the same answer as number 6. (*answered*)

This is not the same as number 6 because it is discussing the rays of light visibly emerging over the curved horizon. Number 6 is an FE model flaw, not direct evidence of RE. Unless they have the same answer which you claim exists somewhere.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #12 on: April 26, 2007, 05:18:11 PM »
The same horizon illusion due to the earths acceleration also explains the cloud effect.

What horizon illusion? The flawed one where the slight refraction evidently makes the sun appear to touch?
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #13 on: April 26, 2007, 06:13:29 PM »
A message to all:
Please refrain from regressing in your behavior. It makes serious topics harder to discuss.

(I think he's talking to you sokurle)

What did he do other then ask for a straight out answer? I have previously experienced threads where a debate has been inhibited by frivolous shit like random mickey mouse porn or childish insults.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #14 on: April 27, 2007, 03:18:20 AM »
Narcberry has run away...like mickey mouse
It was decided that Tom's abuse of his suspiciously acquired mod powers was too much to let continue.  His account was deleted.

Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2007, 02:36:17 PM »
The same horizon illusion due to the earths acceleration also explains the cloud effect.

I notice that there are a lot of illusions in FE. There are none in RE. And there is no conspiracy in RE. I wonder which theory is more logical...
RE= REALITY

FE= FAKE

Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #16 on: April 27, 2007, 07:00:23 PM »
Here is a point I posted in another thread, which might also be a good point to discuss:

There is a major flaw in your argument which I would like to point out, and here seems a perfectly good place to discuss it.

You claim (as I read in your FAQ) that the earth does not have a gravitational pull (and therefore all downward force otherwise explianed by gravity is caused by an unexplained and perpetual upward movement), and that the stars and other celestial bodies DO have a gravitational pull. The ludicrous nature of this argument aside, how do you explain the lateral gravitational pull of material taken from the earth?

For example, I set up a torsion balance, remove a rock from the eath and use it to demonstrate gravitational pull. The rock (removed from the earth - therefore a material that according to your theory should have no gravitational pull whatsoever), has pulled my torsion balance towards itself. The only logical explanation for this is gravity. If I were to accept your theory that gravity is caused by upward motion, then what force is acting horizontally? Clearly no downward motion. Perhaps a sidewards motion? No, because my torsion balance will move either way towards a rock (taking the shortest path). Therefore, this movement cannot be explained by any movement of the supposedly flat earth. If gravity is the only reasonable explanation for this effect, and the earth consists largely of this material, therefore the earth has gravitational pull. If the earth has gravitational pull, it would have pulled itself into a round shape by now. Therefore, a flat earth cannot exist.
Quote from: Steve Jones
An energetic, all-inclusive and amusing account of man's impressive capacity for self-delusion. Every creationist should read it.
Quote for truth.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #17 on: April 27, 2007, 07:03:40 PM »
Here is a point I posted in another thread, which might also be a good point to discuss:

There is a major flaw in your argument which I would like to point out, and here seems a perfectly good place to discuss it.

You claim (as I read in your FAQ) that the earth does not have a gravitational pull (and therefore all downward force otherwise explianed by gravity is caused by an unexplained and perpetual upward movement), and that the stars and other celestial bodies DO have a gravitational pull. The ludicrous nature of this argument aside, how do you explain the lateral gravitational pull of material taken from the earth?

For example, I set up a torsion balance, remove a rock from the eath and use it to demonstrate gravitational pull. The rock (removed from the earth - therefore a material that according to your theory should have no gravitational pull whatsoever), has pulled my torsion balance towards itself. The only logical explanation for this is gravity. If I were to accept your theory that gravity is caused by upward motion, then what force is acting horizontally? Clearly no downward motion. Perhaps a sidewards motion? No, because my torsion balance will move either way towards a rock (taking the shortest path). Therefore, this movement cannot be explained by any movement of the supposedly flat earth. If gravity is the only reasonable explanation for this effect, and the earth consists largely of this material, therefore the earth has gravitational pull. If the earth has gravitational pull, it would have pulled itself into a round shape by now. Therefore, a flat earth cannot exist.

This is cross-posted, and I'm sure TheEngineer can come up with a clever-sounding answer to your questions, but pleeeease don't let this become another relativity thread...
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2007, 07:27:14 PM »
Well, I think its a huge flaw in the flat earth argument, which I would like to see explained without resorting to "It's a conspiracy" or "There is no evidence to support that". I have performed the experiment myself. If I can disprove your entire conspiracy theory in my garage, then surely it can't withstand any kind of scientific scrutiny.
Quote from: Steve Jones
An energetic, all-inclusive and amusing account of man's impressive capacity for self-delusion. Every creationist should read it.
Quote for truth.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #19 on: April 27, 2007, 07:51:55 PM »
If you conducted it you're lying, if someone else did it's incompetence or conspiracy. If you want them to verify your results they're too busy.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #20 on: April 27, 2007, 07:58:45 PM »
It has been conducted by hundreds of scientists. I have conducted it. It was first conducted in the 17th century. There is no verification needed, no numbers to crunch - you see gravity in action. Gravity exists - there is no other explanation.
Quote from: Steve Jones
An energetic, all-inclusive and amusing account of man's impressive capacity for self-delusion. Every creationist should read it.
Quote for truth.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #21 on: April 27, 2007, 08:01:27 PM »
Of course would say that, you're an REer. REers have this stupid, irritating habit of being correct about the shape of the Earth.

Bastards...
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #22 on: April 27, 2007, 08:04:08 PM »
Gin, I take it from that post you are a sceptic too :)
Quote from: Steve Jones
An energetic, all-inclusive and amusing account of man's impressive capacity for self-delusion. Every creationist should read it.
Quote for truth.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #23 on: April 27, 2007, 08:05:34 PM »
Quote
I have conducted it.

What you are witnessing is acceleration. "Gravity" is a pseudo force based upon a hypothetical undiscovered subatomic particle with zero mass and zero electric charge called the Graviton.

In a previous post on this forum Narcberry shares his concerns, which I believe sums it up:

    If a subatomic particle is responsible for gravity, I can show you my major problem with that. Lets say the world is round and all celestial bodies orbit each other due to a force called gravity. Well the earth and sun send gravitons back and forth that will cause a certain amount of attraction towards one another dependent on the quantity of gravitons and in what direction they came from or what message they might contain.

    Heres my problem: There is a potential energy in the sun and earth due to their distance. Meaning that they have the energy to fall to each other and collide with massive energy. Now if a graviton exists, what if something interferes with its path or message? What if the sun is told to be attracted to the earth in a different direction? That would violate the whole principals of Newtonian physics. It would mean, by creating gravitons, you could create energy from nothing.

    This is due to the fact that the idea of gravitons implies that the sun has the ability to accelerate itself in any direction. All it is doing is waiting to find out what vector of acceleration to apply. This is inconsistent with many theories. The force of attraction on the sun, must be a direct cause of the earth and visa versa.

    Additionally, gravity is a pulling force. In physics, a very basic lesson is there is no such thing as a pulling force, only a pushing one. These can be complicated, so as to seem like a pulling force when it is actually a series of pushing ones. This makes me inclined to believe in gravity (and magnetic and electric) forces that are a series of pushing ones. But that is off topic. If you want to know more I will explain elsewhere.

Einstein himself did not believe Gravity was a force.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2007, 08:07:51 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #24 on: April 27, 2007, 08:08:31 PM »
That refutation goes nowhere to answering it. Gravitons are not 'exchanged' if they do indeed exist. Mass bends spacetime according to our theory, and matter follows this curvature.

Why can there be no pulling forces? A magnet exerts a pulling force...
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #25 on: April 27, 2007, 08:12:53 PM »
I am not clear on what you mean by "acceleration". If you mean that the balance is being moved by air currents or the like, and is accelerating over time, then why does it always move towards the object no matter where it is placed? According to your explanation, the balance should always move one direction, but it does not - it takes the shortest path to the blocks. Also, if I do not provide stops for the balance, it will swing back and forth, gradually getting closer and closer to the block. This changing of direction cannot be explained logically by anything other than gravity.

I find this denial of anything that could possible be used to refute your theory very amusing  ;D
« Last Edit: April 27, 2007, 08:15:15 PM by A Sceptic »
Quote from: Steve Jones
An energetic, all-inclusive and amusing account of man's impressive capacity for self-delusion. Every creationist should read it.
Quote for truth.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #26 on: April 27, 2007, 09:39:56 PM »
What Tom is saying is that what you are witnessing is acceleration, not gravity.  Gravity as a force does not exist.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #27 on: April 27, 2007, 09:44:37 PM »
I know what he said. What I don't understand is how acceleration applies to my experiment.
Quote from: Steve Jones
An energetic, all-inclusive and amusing account of man's impressive capacity for self-delusion. Every creationist should read it.
Quote for truth.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #28 on: April 28, 2007, 12:47:19 AM »
That's. What. You. Are. Witnessing.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Unanswered FE questions
« Reply #29 on: April 28, 2007, 02:32:44 AM »
Perhaps he doesn't understand why it is acceleration. Maybe you should explain it to him without reverting to one word sentences, TheEngineer. Or failing that tell him you're not here to explain things and abandon the thread.
It was decided that Tom's abuse of his suspiciously acquired mod powers was too much to let continue.  His account was deleted.