Natural phenomena

  • 35 Replies
  • 9252 Views
?

Pointland32

  • 39
  • +0/-0
Natural phenomena
« on: June 29, 2008, 11:18:12 AM »
Are there any natural phenomena that RE theory cannot explain?

?

Zotoaster

  • 101
  • +0/-0
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2008, 11:19:03 AM »
The Flat Earth Society. Nothing explains this. National Geographic should do a documentary on it.

*

Guessed

  • 5376
  • +0/-0
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2008, 11:22:10 AM »
The Flat Earth Society. Nothing explains this. National Geographic should do a documentary on it.

Belief explains it. Debate explains it. Lurking moar explains it. You are wrong, again.
Is Dino open source?

Quote from: grogberries


*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2008, 11:59:18 AM »
They just fill in the gaps with magic.


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

?

Zotoaster

  • 101
  • +0/-0
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2008, 12:20:55 PM »
The Flat Earth Society. Nothing explains this. National Geographic should do a documentary on it.

Belief explains it. Debate explains it. Lurking moar explains it. You are wrong, again.

Belief explains.. belief... That's all. You know some people actually believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster?. Debate doesn't explain unless the debate has been won, and according to you guys it hasn't. "Lurking moar" will just drive me insane.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2008, 12:23:54 PM »
Belief explains.. belief... That's all. You know some people actually believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster?. Debate doesn't explain unless the debate has been won, and according to you guys it hasn't. "Lurking moar" will just drive me insane.

Do you have a point? That is to say, one that does not change every time you get proven wrong?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Guessed

  • 5376
  • +0/-0
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2008, 12:28:22 PM »
The Flat Earth Society. Nothing explains this. National Geographic should do a documentary on it.

Belief explains it. Debate explains it. Lurking moar explains it. You are wrong, again.

Belief explains.. belief... That's all. You know some people actually believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster?. Debate doesn't explain unless the debate has been won, and according to you guys it hasn't. "Lurking moar" will just drive me insane.

Debate explains it if you pay attention. Lurking more will assist this process. You may be right about belief, but your point is irrelevant. The only reason you get nothing from these forums is because you willfully ignore any argument posed by FE proponents by calling them stupid, or other such trivial things.
Is Dino open source?

Quote from: grogberries


?

Zotoaster

  • 101
  • +0/-0
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2008, 12:33:59 PM »
The only reason you get nothing from these forums is because you willfully ignore any argument posed by FE proponents by calling them stupid, or other such trivial things.

Read by '20 problems and fallacies in the FAQ' thread.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2008, 12:57:38 PM »
Are there any natural phenomena that RE theory cannot explain?

What is the mechanism for 'gravity'?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2008, 12:58:57 PM »
Are there any natural phenomena that RE theory cannot explain?

Depends on what you consider an adequate explanation.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

Zotoaster

  • 101
  • +0/-0
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2008, 12:59:15 PM »
Are there any natural phenomena that RE theory cannot explain?

What is the mechanism for 'gravity'?

I don't think I'll get into the whole general relativity.

I don't usually do this, but I'd much rather trust Einstein than the FES.  ;)

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2008, 12:59:29 PM »
They just fill in the gaps with magic.


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

?

Zotoaster

  • 101
  • +0/-0
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2008, 01:20:38 PM »
They just fill in the gaps with magic.

TheEngineer,

you seem to know a lot about relativity and all this theoretical physics stuff that nobody else seems to be able to grasp. Why do you insisit that it's all magic?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #13 on: June 29, 2008, 01:24:13 PM »
They just fill in the gaps with magic.

TheEngineer,

you seem to know a lot about relativity and all this theoretical physics stuff that nobody else seems to be able to grasp. Why do you insisit that it's all magic?

If I understand his position correctly, he's simply mocking the RE pseudo-argument that FE'ers attribute the Earth's acceleration to a force that they cannot explain, by pointing out that there will always be some level on which we cannot explain things.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2008, 01:24:40 PM »
I don't insist it is all magic.  But if there is something that the RE has no answer for, they just make something up to fit the observations.  Hence, the 'magic' part.


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

?

Zotoaster

  • 101
  • +0/-0
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #15 on: June 29, 2008, 01:26:04 PM »
I don't insist it is all magic.  But if there is something that the RE has no answer for, they just make something up to fit the observations.  Hence, the 'magic' part.
Lol, speaking of making things up to fit observations, there's this thing called 'the Ice Wall'. Somebody should make a movie about it.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #16 on: June 29, 2008, 01:27:06 PM »
I find it very hypocritical of RE'ers.


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

?

Pointland32

  • 39
  • +0/-0
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #17 on: June 29, 2008, 02:32:04 PM »
Well, gravity is used to explain natural phenomena, but I was asking for natural phenomena that have been observed and cannot be explained by RE theory?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #18 on: June 29, 2008, 02:45:15 PM »
The accelerating expansion of the universe.


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

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #19 on: June 29, 2008, 02:51:41 PM »
Selenelion.
Tidal anomalies.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #20 on: June 29, 2008, 03:16:47 PM »
Selenelion.
Tidal anomalies.

1) As I said on another thread:
I'm not convinced about this refraction talk, I'm not sure refraction is capable of moving the sun that distance (>1°). However, it's unnecessary. Here is a diagram (exaggerated) to show how the selenelion works:



Obviously it's not to scale, but that's the basic idea. As you can see, it can only happen at sunrise/sunset, and lo and behold -- all of Tom's photos show the eclipse happening in twilight.

Also, the vast majority of lunar eclipses happen at night. Why should this be the case in FET? It makes total sense in RET. And why do none happen at midday?

Come to think of it, why in FET do we never get a full moon at midday?

2) What tidal anomolies? And how does FET explain them?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #21 on: June 29, 2008, 03:27:15 PM »
1. So your position is that a selenelion is visible from an airplane or mountain of great height. Can you provide a diagram depicting an actual observer with an accurate horizon? Better yet. Reproduce the effect with a flashlight, beachball and tennis ball.

2. Differences due to gravitation of the moon/anti-moon and other heavenly bodies swirling in the sky.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #22 on: June 29, 2008, 03:43:47 PM »
1. So your position is that a selenelion is visible from an airplane or mountain of great height. Can you provide a diagram depicting an actual observer with an accurate horizon? Better yet. Reproduce the effect with a flashlight, beachball and tennis ball.

That is not my position at all. Why don't you stop misquoting and start providing actual arguments? I said the diagram was exaggerated.

By my calculations, the observer would only have to be a 243m above the ground level at the horizon to be able to see both the sun and the moon. It's hardly incredible for the ground to rise 250m in 3 miles (3 miles ~ distance to horizon). That's assuming no refraction, and refraction would help slightly.

2. Differences due to gravitation of the moon/anti-moon and other heavenly bodies swirling in the sky.

You didn't actually say what anomalies these are. If you tell me what you're talking I can provide a RE explanation.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2008, 03:47:18 PM by ghazwozza »

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #23 on: June 29, 2008, 04:24:41 PM »
1. Please draw the horizon properly.

2. Things like this: http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=566851658830126;res=IELENG
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #24 on: June 30, 2008, 07:21:56 AM »
1. Please draw the horizon properly.

Why bother? Calculation show it to be possible. And you want me to draw a 1.8m tall man on a scale diagram of the solar system? You're mad.

2. Things like this: http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=566851658830126;res=IELENG

I can't be bothered to read that. Care to summarise, or have you not read it either?

?

Rig Navigator

  • 808
  • +0/-0
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #25 on: June 30, 2008, 07:36:20 AM »
2. Things like this: http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=566851658830126;res=IELENG

Why is a paper on anomalies is tidal predictions relevant to a response showing why selenelions are possible.  I figure that I don't want to pay AU$33 to read a paper on the measuring of anomalies of tidal predictions.  Since tidal predictions are based purely on lunar movement and basin topography, but can be effected by weather and other non-predictable variables, it is important for engineers that work with that environment to be able to take that into account.

That is based on the summary of the paper.  If there is information relevant to selenelions in the paper, please let us know what it is.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #26 on: June 30, 2008, 01:26:02 PM »
2. Things like this: http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=566851658830126;res=IELENG

Why is a paper on anomalies is tidal predictions relevant to a response showing why selenelions are possible. 

It's not related to selenelions      ???
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Rig Navigator

  • 808
  • +0/-0
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2008, 02:07:55 PM »
It's not related to selenelions      ???

My apologies.

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #28 on: June 30, 2008, 04:23:43 PM »
They just fill in the gaps with magic.

TheEngineer,

you seem to know a lot about relativity and all this theoretical physics stuff that nobody else seems to be able to grasp. Why do you insisit that it's all magic?
Because thats how physics works.  We cannot possibly know everything.  We fill in the gaps with "it just does" or with a fancy name and an equation.
If yoou can't argue both sides, yyou undrst!and neitr

?

Rig Navigator

  • 808
  • +0/-0
Re: Natural phenomena
« Reply #29 on: July 01, 2008, 06:51:15 AM »
Tidal anomalies.

Can you be more specific about the nature of these anomalies?  While I have not seen any anomalies that can not be explained by current models of tides, I have seen conditions that make predictions not entirely accurate.

The largest of these is the wind.  Because tidal predictions are based on the position of the Sun, Moon and basin characteristics, they can not take into account the fluctuations in range that are caused by the wind.  If the wind is blowing the water up into a basin the tide will be higher or earlier than predicted, and the contrary is true if the wind is blowing the water out of a basin.

Here is an explanation from a book...

Quote from: American Practical Navigator
Tides are superimposed on non-tidal rising falling water levels, caused by weather, seismic events, or other natural forces.  Similarly, tidal currents are superimposed upon non-tidal currents such as normal river flows, floods and freshets.

and...

Quote from: American Practical Navigator
Observed tides will differ considerable from the tides predicted by equilibrium theory since size, depth and configuration of the basin or waterway, friction, land masses, inertia of water masses, Coriolis acceleration and other factors are neglected in this theory.  Nevertheless, equilibrium theory is sufficient to describe the magnitude and distribution of the main tide-generating forces across the surface of the Earth.