Flawed FE Foundations

  • 94 Replies
  • 11995 Views
?

jdoe

  • 388
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #60 on: January 31, 2008, 11:17:20 PM »
Well, hypothetically speaking, if gravity existed.
Mars or Bust

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #61 on: January 31, 2008, 11:21:18 PM »
Well, hypothetically speaking, if gravity existed.
No, because Newton knew nothing of relativity.  Relativity is somewhat backwards compatible with Newtonian gravity but NG is not future compatible with GR.


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

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #62 on: January 31, 2008, 11:22:39 PM »
Geodesics don't exist in Newtonian gravity, my friend.

I mentioned Einsteinian, didn't I?
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #63 on: January 31, 2008, 11:25:08 PM »
So how were you going to show that light could not be affected by Newtonian gravity?
Light does not have mass according to Newtonian gravity.
I did mention Newtonian, didn't I?


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

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #64 on: January 31, 2008, 11:26:22 PM »
So neither of us were wrong, now were we?
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

?

jdoe

  • 388
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #65 on: January 31, 2008, 11:27:28 PM »
Well, hypothetically speaking, if gravity existed.
No, because Newton knew nothing of relativity.  Relativity is somewhat backwards compatible with Newtonian gravity but NG is not future compatible with GR.

Well the reason I'm curious is because you can reconcile relativity with the Coulombic force.  Why shouldn't you also be able to reconcile relativity with gravity which is also an inverse square law?
Mars or Bust

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #66 on: January 31, 2008, 11:31:33 PM »
So neither of us were wrong, now were we?
No. 


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

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #67 on: January 31, 2008, 11:35:01 PM »
Well the reason I'm curious is because you can reconcile relativity with the Coulombic force.  Why shouldn't you also be able to reconcile relativity with gravity which is also an inverse square law?
Newtonian gravity and GR are necessarily contradictory.


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

?

jdoe

  • 388
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #68 on: January 31, 2008, 11:39:11 PM »
Well the reason I'm curious is because you can reconcile relativity with the Coulombic force.  Why shouldn't you also be able to reconcile relativity with gravity which is also an inverse square law?
Newtonian gravity and GR are necessarily contradictory.

Well, obviously they are contradictory.  But, maybe with a few adjustments, like the same adjustments made when dealing with the electric force, some of those contradictions could go away.
Mars or Bust

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #69 on: January 31, 2008, 11:44:44 PM »
No.  Two are irreconcilable.


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

?

jdoe

  • 388
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #70 on: January 31, 2008, 11:51:33 PM »
I don't know.  It seems entirely possible that one could construct a "modified" law of gravity that could explain the same phenomena as GR without the need for spacetime curvature.
Mars or Bust

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #71 on: January 31, 2008, 11:53:09 PM »
Already done.  See: MOdified Newtonian Dynamics, or MOND.


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

?

jdoe

  • 388
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #72 on: February 01, 2008, 12:05:01 AM »
So, if the graviton were discovered, would gravity then be a true force?
Mars or Bust

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #73 on: February 01, 2008, 12:11:48 AM »
Not necessarily.  There needs to be information transfer between objects with the 'big 3' quantities, and space.  I don't find it unreasonable that the graviton could be this carrier.


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

?

jdoe

  • 388
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #74 on: February 01, 2008, 12:18:33 AM »
So how would gravitation be explained if the graviton existed?  It wouldn't be spacetime curvature, right?
Mars or Bust

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #75 on: February 01, 2008, 12:22:35 AM »
It could.  The graviton could the the information carrier between space and objects.


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

?

jdoe

  • 388
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #76 on: February 01, 2008, 12:43:57 AM »
Anyway, I'm sorry this got so far off topic.

Here's a question about Rowbotham's perspective laws:

Say you have a person standing up at a very far distance away on a perfectly flat plain.  According to Rowbotham, there should be a distance at which the feet and lower legs of the person begin to disappear below the horizon.  He attributes this to the small angular size of the person's legs.  Their angular size is simply to small for the human eye to detect, so the lower legs simply disappear below the horizon.  This explains the sinking ship effect.  But I ask this, why should not the person's head disappear also?  It's angular size is even smaller that the person's legs, yet our vision is still able to see it.  Or why not the chest, arms or abdomen?
Mars or Bust

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #77 on: February 01, 2008, 07:26:42 AM »
Bump for unanswered topic.
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.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #78 on: February 01, 2008, 07:32:52 AM »
Sinking Ship Effect was already explained in my thread.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #79 on: February 01, 2008, 07:43:39 AM »
Care to link me to it? As much as I remember from the thread, it was pure speculation.
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.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #80 on: February 01, 2008, 07:47:08 AM »
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18560.0

It was speculation only in that I don't have the figures or math to contest my idea. But for all intents and purposes, it provides the best explanation I've seen.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #81 on: February 01, 2008, 08:02:18 AM »
My entire point was that attempting to explain the phenomenon for a Flat Earth is the wrong place to start empirically. For FE to work, it requires this point as a basis. Speculation of an FE version of visible curvature is not solid enough to base the rest of FE on it. Starting with FE being true and deciding why this effect must be true shows bias to FE. Rowbotham's alleged effects must be a proven science in order to support all other branches. I continually hear that the conspiracy MUST exist if FE is true. Evidence for RE is dismissed as perpetuated by the conspiracy. It all reduces to how this theory was established and how valid it is. Brainstorming why light would create the illusion of RE when it is really FE shows that FE was a preconceived 'truth' for FE'ers because this is the beginning of FE as a theory.

If you consider FE valid, then either you found other evidence beyond Rowbotham's work and started there, or you figured out what would create the effect in a mathematical way.
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.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #82 on: February 01, 2008, 09:38:20 AM »
I'm not sure what that has to do with my thread, but ok.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #83 on: February 01, 2008, 10:40:59 AM »
This effect is hardly the basis for the entirety of the FE
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #84 on: February 05, 2008, 09:34:05 AM »
This effect is hardly the basis for the entirety of the FE
Rowbotham's work is. I simply chose one of his claims to disprove.
If you disagree, then what do you believe is the foundation for FET? There must be a reason to believe in it other than it is 'possible'.
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.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #85 on: February 05, 2008, 11:36:49 AM »
This effect is hardly the basis for the entirety of the FE
Rowbotham's work is. I simply chose one of his claims to disprove.
If you disagree, then what do you believe is the foundation for FET? There must be a reason to believe in it other than it is 'possible'.
There is one reason. The view from Tom Bishop's "window".
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #86 on: February 05, 2008, 03:36:40 PM »
There is one reason. The view from Tom Bishop's "window".
Ah yes.  :D
Perhaps the nature of the universe collapses into a new and separate plane of existence when viewed through Tom's anomalous.... "window". I will have to check it out.
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: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #87 on: February 05, 2008, 04:00:05 PM »
I'm not sure what that has to do with my thread, but ok.

Air is extremely uniform, especially in such a little change in height (eye level to ground level). The principles governing the interactions of light through mediums varying in density to such a minor degree seems dismissable without some form of math or evidence as to why we would see such a strong difference. Without something to back it up it seems to be nothing more than speculation.

Somewhat relevant: Wind is caused by differences in pressure, yet fluctuations in the appearance of distant objects isn't visible. A simple fan would surely distort distant scenery when turned on if such an effect could be caused by natural air gradients.
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.

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #88 on: February 05, 2008, 04:21:07 PM »
Remember, air has such a low index of refraction (1.002 IIRC), that you have to have a very good explanation for this.
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #89 on: February 05, 2008, 06:58:02 PM »
Remember, air has such a low index of refraction (1.002 IIRC), that you have to have a very good explanation for this.

A low number for a refractive index means nothing. Even a small number adds up.