The See saw effect.

If this see saw effect was true there would be mass flooding on both sides of the earth. and mass flooding on each side of the land masses!

There isn't a see-saw effect.

Take it out of your FAQ then, r-tard.

There isn't a see-saw effect.

What causes tides then?

What causes tides then?

In the spirit of irrational skepticism I will have to say that a giant angel named Tidusious uses his gigantic invisible hands to swish the water back and forth. Prove it wrong, lol.

Quote

What causes tides then?

In the spirit of irrational skepticism I will have to say that a giant angel named Tidusious uses his gigantic invisible hands to swish the water back and forth. Prove it wrong, lol.

I think you are misusing the "Will to Believe."


Actually, they are caused by gravitational pull of the moons.

How is it that the antimoon is the only thing below us?

How is it that the antimoon is the only thing below us?

There are probably other things.  Its the only one we have detected yet, however.

According to the Cosmological law, the universe must look similar all around.

There are probably other things.  Its the only one we have detected yet, however.

I wouldn't say detected. It's the only one that's been theorized.

Quote

There are probably other things.  Its the only one we have detected yet, however.

I wouldn't say detected. It's the only one that's been theorized.

Certainly we can detect it just by its gravitational field.

Certainly we can detect it just by its gravitational field.

I'm sure that the anti-moon effect could simulated equally well by giving the standard moon no gravitational field, and having two objects 90 degrees ahead and behind the moon's orbit to create the low tides. You could probably do the same thing with 4 objects, 2 acting like a moon under the planet, and two acting like an anti-moon.

Quote

Certainly we can detect it just by its gravitational field.

I'm sure that the anti-moon effect could simulated equally well by giving the standard moon no gravitational field, and having two objects 90 degrees ahead and behind the moon's orbit to create the low tides. You could probably do the same thing with 4 objects, 2 acting like a moon under the planet, and two acting like an anti-moon.

Yeah I suppose so.  Detected may be the incorrect word. 

i find it interesting that you say the gravity of the moon or anti-moon causes tides, when you ALSO claim that there IS no such thing AS gravity!

Sometimes I wish Eric was in the room with me so I could knock him over the head with a hammer.

Sometimes I wish Eric was in the room with me so I could knock him over the head with a hammer.

Indeed.

yes, FErs really hate it when i point out the huge inconsistencies and contradictions in their theories.

i find it interesting that you say the gravity of the moon or anti-moon causes tides, when you ALSO claim that there IS no such thing AS gravity!

I said the gravitational pull of the moons causes tides, not gravity.

When we say gravity doesn't exist, we are referring to the force.

Not to interrupt this, but I really wish you guys would stop pointing that out to everyone, because while scientifically they are distinct, in casual usage, they are the interchangeable.

Not to interrupt this, but I really wish you guys would stop pointing that out to everyone, because while scientifically they are distinct, in casual usage, they are the interchangeable.

I agree, when people understand the difference and don't misuse them and understand the difference, like eric.

Quote from: fshy94 on January 15, 2008, 09:50:40 AM

Not to interrupt this, but I really wish you guys would stop pointing that out to everyone, because while scientifically they are distinct, in casual usage, they are the interchangeable.

I agree, when people understand the difference, and don't misuse them, and understand the difference, like eric.

Redundantly redundant? I think you reorganized your sentence and forgot to delete part.

Indeed.  Opps

Username, I may have said this before but I think your concession to the existence of gravity is a grave scientific error.

How on Earth could the Moon and Sun be subject to the forces of gravity whilst the Earth was not?

I'd be interested to know where you got the idea that these celestial bodies could harness a non-existent force - I've never seen it mentioned in any published zetetic literature. I'd also like you to explain how the Earth is exempt from it. As I'm sure globularists will agree, gravity, IF IT EXISTED, would crumple the Earth into a sphere. This has not occured - why?

I urge you to justify your claims, because clearly they are causing a great deal of confusion - I and many others maintain that gravity simply does not exist in any form and that Universal Acceleration is the only cause of gravitation.

Your abuse of the word antimoon troubles me too (as well as the concept itself). Unless you subscribe to a radically altered view of Universal Acceleration, it is impossible that a body could float underneath the Earth - the Earth is in direct contact with the UA).

This is not intended as an attack, I earnestly wish to clear up the issues surrounding your model.

Oh, and so Dogplatter, you will kindly tell me what keeps planets together, and why moons are observed to orbit other planets. I don't subscribe to FE at all, but at least Username's makes something resembling sense. Or am I a member of the conspiracy when I observe a moon orbiting another planet with my telescope?

Oh, and so Dogplatter, you will kindly tell me what keeps planets together,

Even globularists are forced to concede that forces besides gravity cause the cohesion of matter. It's caused by a synthesis of the so-called "weak" and "strong" nuclear forces, and at a larger level by the locking of bodies of matter already under cohesion by those forces.

and why moons are observed to orbit other planets. I don't subscribe to FE at all, but at least Username's makes something resembling sense. Or am I a member of the conspiracy when I observe a moon orbiting another planet with my telescope?

UA afterburn theory fully accomodates the observable moons of other planets (which are, for obvious reasons, not "true moons").

Actually, nuclear forces don't affect this. Strong force is a very short range force, and weak force is well, quantum color change, TBH.

Chemical bonds do affect this, so iron asteroids are OK, but sand and dust, like on the Moon, would not stay together well, especially with UA making them want to deform flatter. Furthermore, I've read the FAQ and never seen anything about moons and UA before. Care to explain? Thanks.

Actually, nuclear forces don't affect this. Strong force is a very short range force, and weak force is well, quantum color change, TBH.

Chemical bonds do affect this, so iron asteroids are OK, but sand and dust, like on the Moon, would not stay together well, especially with UA making them want to deform flatter.

The interior of the Earth isn't comprised of sand and dust. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but I don't discount the existence of the Earth's core.

Furthermore, I've read the FAQ and never seen anything about moons and UA before. Care to explain? Thanks.

I've mentioned it in a few UA threads. Basically, the visible light we see from planets is not a result of light bounced from the Sun (obvious when you think about our opinions on the position and nature of the Sun), rather the result of massive friction between the huge objects and the UA itself. Pseudotectonic processes within the planets themselves, so the hypothesis goes, essentially project consistent "blueprints" which create predictable patterns of light mistaken for the surfaces of planets. No, there is as of yet not sufficient evidence to prove this hypothesis. Zetetic organizations are few, far between, and as a rule fairly impoverished. Consequently, progress is slow as far as study of the grossly mis-named "Solar system" (nearby visible planets) is concerned.

I'm not presenting it as irrefutable fact, it just seems like the most likely candidate for explanation. I'm aware that certain schools of Zetetic thought hold this to be false and actually believe in round planets with rotating moons, but I fail to see how that overcomes inconsistencies with the Earth's own structure. "The other planets are not like the Earth" doesn't cut it for me (and for the pioneers of this model).

I'm not talking about the Earth in the first point. I'm talking about the Moon. It ought to be pretty obviously ovoid, and that isn't observed.

About the second point...friction? Friction tends to create infra-red, with very little in the visible spectrum. It also doesn't explain colors of planets based upon composition. In fact, According to that theory, objects with the least frictional coefficient should be dimmest, as opposed to objects with proper reflection, according to RE. It seems excessively coincidental that RE would predict exactly what is observed, despite it being wrong.

Furthermore, I point I raised before, supports the RE model, which is retroreflectors placed on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts, and the Soviet rovers. These retroreflecters, when a laser ping is fired at them, return the ping back to the astronomer, and allow us to measure the distance to the Moon, which is over 350k kilometers. It supports the RE theory.

About the second point...friction? Friction tends to create infra-red, with very little in the visible spectrum. It also doesn't explain colors of planets based upon composition. In fact, According to that theory, objects with the least frictional coefficient should be dimmest, as opposed to objects with proper reflection, according to RE. It seems excessively coincidental that RE would predict exactly what is observed, despite it being wrong.

Furthermore, I point I raised before, supports the RE model, which is retroreflectors placed on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts, and the Soviet rovers. These retroreflecters, when a laser ping is fired at them, return the ping back to the astronomer, and allow us to measure the distance to the Moon, which is over 350k kilometers. It supports the RE theory.

Like I said, it's only a hypothesis. As I mentioned in a parallel thread to this one, zetetic science, like globular science, is a constantly developing and changing body of ideas.

Username, I may have said this before but I think your concession to the existence of gravity is a grave scientific error.

You have. 

How on Earth could the Moon and Sun be subject to the forces of gravity whilst the Earth was not?

The earth is.  Now I will be the first to admit my ideas are not part of mainstream flat earth beliefs.  However I am working on a set of beliefs and ideas that I believe is worth investigation.

I postulate the earth is infinite horizontally and exerts gravitational pull.

I'd be interested to know where you got the idea that these celestial bodies could harness a non-existent force - I've never seen it mentioned in any published zetetic literature. I'd also like you to explain how the Earth is exempt from it. As I'm sure globularists will agree, gravity, IF IT EXISTED, would crumple the Earth into a sphere. This has not occured - why?

This has not occured because there is no horizontal center of gravity - every point is the horizontal center.  The only pull is downwards/upwards to the vertical center.

I urge you to justify your claims, because clearly they are causing a great deal of confusion - I and many others maintain that gravity simply does not exist in any form and that Universal Acceleration is the only cause of gravitation.

Your abuse of the word antimoon troubles me too (as well as the concept itself). Unless you subscribe to a radically altered view of Universal Acceleration, it is impossible that a body could float underneath the Earth - the Earth is in direct contact with the UA).

This is not intended as an attack, I earnestly wish to clear up the issues surrounding your model.

I don't believe in Universal Acceleration.  Others have found ways to include the "antimoon" or from now on the submoon, or whatever you wish to call it in their theories that coincide with UA.  You should talk to them about that, as I can't really speak for it.   I am slowly working on a paper clarifying my model for this very reason.