Can you disprove the Flat Earth Theory?

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2008, 02:10:18 PM

Some say that the bottom of the FE shields the top of the FE from the effects of the DE/UA.  Apparently you believe that at lest some of the DE/UA completely penetrates the FE.  Tell me, if enough of the DE/UA penetrates the FE to affect the path of light, why is nothing else affected by that same DE/UA.

According to the theory, as I understood it, is that DE affects matter and radiation differently.

How convenient.

This started long before the phenomenon was first noticed, so not really.

So there is no scientific discussion here, I cant prove you wrong and you cant prove me wrong.

Exactly. No win. Never ending discussions. Endless pastime.

What's gravity? Until you know what it is and it's mechanism, you don't even know why I'm sitting on a chair held to the floor, without any restraints or magnets of any kind.

What's gravity? Until you know what it is and it's mechanism, you don't even know why I'm sitting on a chair held to the floor, without any restraints or magnets of any kind.

And yet you seem quite content not knowing the mechanism of the UA.  How exactly does the DE interact with the FE and celestial bodies again?

Why don't round earther's set up a series of experiments that would prove a round earth and do them theirselves? Or is that too much to ask?

What would you accept as evidence?  Water level experiments won't work; you'll just claim that light is bending upwards.

According to the theory, as I understood it, is that DE affects matter and radiation differently.

Correct.

This will probably not disprove the Flat Earth Theory, but it may open your eyes a bit.

First, look at this image:

Everyone would agree that this image show a black dot, right? Right!
In reference to what many FE-believers say, and I'm sure Tom posted something like this:
"If I look out of my window the earth appears flat, therefore it must be flat."
As you can see the image above shows a dot, therfore it must be a dot. Nothing else. Right? No quite though.
If you turn the image a bit, you suddenly got this:

"What the hell?! How could that be? I'm pretty sure it was only a dot i saw!"
The point i'm trying to make here is that it even though we look out of the window and our eyes see a flat earth,
it may not be so after all. It's all a matter of perspective. So is it possible that the earth only appears to look flat,
but in reality it may have another shape?

Is it possible that the earth is round if you look at it from another angle or perhaps another height?

Think about it! 

(If me english suck it's because I'm norwegian and english is not my most used language.
So feel free to correct any spelling or grammar errors you may find reading through this post)

Why don't round earther's set up a series of experiments that would prove a round earth and do them theirselves? Or is that too much to ask?

If I really did so you wouldn't believe me or my brother who has a doctorate from Princeton University in astro-physics.

If I really did so you wouldn't believe me or my brother who has a doctorate from Princeton University in astro-physics.

 

My brother Philip Marfuta is a grad student at Princeton University, you'll be seeing posts from him soon ,
 

Wow, that was one fast degree!

Quote from: o0mofo0o on September 08, 2008, 12:32:56 PM

If I really did so you wouldn't believe me or my brother who has a doctorate from Princeton University in astro-physics.

 

Quote from: o0mofo0o on September 01, 2008, 08:29:50 PM

My brother Philip Marfuta is a grad student at Princeton University, you'll be seeing posts from him soon ,
 

Wow, that was one fast degree!

Either that or he is doing some post doctorate work.  Or working on another degree (a.k.a. professional student).

Most Ph. D.'s or their brothers would never refer to themselves as a grad student.  There's a large supply of dignity in those gowns.

THE EARTH IS ROUND!!!
Here is how they proven that the earth is round before columbus:
If you look out to the horizon to an ocean, you will see the mast of a boat before any thing elts.
If the earth was flat you would see the full ship coming to port, but since it is round you see the mast.

Also if you go in a plane you can clearly see the curve of the earth.

For lazy people that just look out there window, the earth is EXTREMELY MASSIVE.  you are not even an ant compared to a city!!! The earth is huge, and you can't tell just by looking and assuming.

Columbus and many sailors have went around the earth.

Columbus and many sailors have went around the earth.

Now this is new information.  Care to share it with us?

Has anyone paid attention to the OP? FET needs to be falsifiable. FE'ers have often thanked RE'ers by poking holes in their model because it gave them new ideas as to how to explain the observable phenomena that support RE. Creating flawed explanations like the bending of light (sinking effect) just proves the preconceived notions that FE'ers are fixated on, when they should be reexamining FE itself.

How do we prove FE wrong when we can make up laws of physics?
How can we prove FE wrong?

Has anyone paid attention to the OP? FET needs to be falsifiable. FE'ers have often thanked RE'ers by poking holes in their model because it gave them new ideas as to how to explain the observable phenomena that support RE. Creating flawed explanations like the bending of light (sinking effect) just proves the preconceived notions that FE'ers are fixated on, when they should be reexamining FE itself.

Flat earth theory is so obvious that there's no reason to expect it to be falsifiable. Consider the statement "the sun makes the surface of the earth warm". I don't think any scientists are claiming that there is a different factor which is making the surface of the earth warm, and the sun is just coincidence. Now if you came along and claimed that there was a nonobvious factor, then the burden would be on you to prove it. Same with RE theory.

A theory by definition has to be falsifiable. Radiation from the sun has been detected and demonstrated to be absorbed into the Earth in many forms. Should we discover another possibility, other tests are constructed.

Quote from: Jack - Falling duck on September 08, 2008, 01:57:02 PM

Columbus and many sailors have went around the earth.

Now this is new information.  Care to share it with us?

here is one sailor:

A sailor a long while back (I'm sorry, but I forgot his name, I'll tell you what it was when I remember it) wanted to prove the earth round.  so he got a boat and a crew and went off from Europe coast line.  He set sail.  He hit the Americas and passed over it (he had a special boat that could be token apart and moved) and crossed it.  he then sailed on until he hit some islands near Australia.  the natives where friendly with him, but something went wrong and they attacked.  he was killed by an spear in the chest, but his crew continued on the journy and made it to china and India.

Not to mention military plains have flown the world over and over.

here is one sailor:

A sailor a long while back (I'm sorry, but I forgot his name, I'll tell you what it was when I remember it) wanted to prove the earth round.  so he got a boat and a crew and went off from Europe coast line.  He set sail.  He hit the Americas and passed over it (he had a special boat that could be token apart and moved) and crossed it.  he then sailed on until he hit some islands near Australia.  the natives where friendly with him, but something went wrong and they attacked.  he was killed by an spear in the chest, but his crew continued on the journy and made it to china and India.

Not to mention military plains have flown the world over and over.

You're joking right?  Because otherwise I'd ask if that was Salisbury Plain or perhaps the Plains of Abraham that have flown the world over and over.

You might ask yourself if you and your friend are in over your heads here.

A theory by definition has to be falsifiable. Radiation from the sun has been detected and demonstrated to be absorbed into the Earth in many forms. Should we discover another possibility, other tests are constructed.

Yes, but how are you going to disprove that it's making the surface of the Earth hot? What's your experiment that demonstrates falsifiability?

Let's assume we're in the caveman era and we all know that when the sun's bright, it's hot outside. Do we need to prove it? Isn't the burden on you to show otherwise?

A theory by definition has to be falsifiable. Radiation from the sun has been detected and demonstrated to be absorbed into the Earth in many forms. Should we discover another possibility, other tests are constructed.

No it hasn't been demonstrated. It has not been proven that photons exist. No one has seen an individual photon. When one looks at sunlight there is no guarantee that photons are intersecting the eye. There are alternatives to Photon Theory such as the Dark Sucker Theory.

This will probably not disprove the Flat Earth Theory, but it may open your eyes a bit.

First, look at this image:

Everyone would agree that this image show a black dot, right? Right!
In reference to what many FE-believers say, and I'm sure Tom posted something like this:
"If I look out of my window the earth appears flat, therefore it must be flat."
As you can see the image above shows a dot, therfore it must be a dot. Nothing else. Right? No quite though.
If you turn the image a bit, you suddenly got this:

"What the hell?! How could that be? I'm pretty sure it was only a dot i saw!"
The point i'm trying to make here is that it even though we look out of the window and our eyes see a flat earth,
it may not be so after all. It's all a matter of perspective. So is it possible that the earth only appears to look flat,
but in reality it may have another shape?

Is it possible that the earth is round if you look at it from another angle or perhaps another height?

Think about it! 

(If me english suck it's because I'm norwegian and english is not my most used language.
So feel free to correct any spelling or grammar errors you may find reading through this post)

Still waiting for FE-believers to comment on this. Anyone?

If you're claiming something stupid like "it's all an illusion" or "your eyes are playing tricks on you!" then the burden is on you to prove it.

Where's your proof?

Quote from: Tim Bishop on August 30, 2008, 09:46:26 PM

Why don't round earther's set up a series of experiments that would prove a round earth and do them theirselves? Or is that too much to ask?

You mean something like:
  Observing the heavens at different times, from different points around the world?  -Something that's done all the time, in fact.

What exactly are you observing? The sun and moon move around, of course you can observe them from different points.

If you're claiming something stupid like "it's all an illusion" or "your eyes are playing tricks on you!" then the burden is on you to prove it.

Where's your proof?

Do you agree that things may be appear different than they really are? Haven't you experienced this before?
You see something that appear to be one thing, but after further investigation, you suddenly realized that this was not what you thought it to be at first.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 08, 2008, 02:24:52 PM

A theory by definition has to be falsifiable. Radiation from the sun has been detected and demonstrated to be absorbed into the Earth in many forms. Should we discover another possibility, other tests are constructed.

Yes, but how are you going to disprove that it's making the surface of the Earth hot? What's your experiment that demonstrates falsifiability?

Let's assume we're in the caveman era and we all know that when the sun's bright, it's hot outside. Do we need to prove it? Isn't the burden on you to show otherwise?

Radiative heat transfer is as proven as proven can ever get. Different lights sources of all types can be shown to emit different wavelengths that excite the particles in objects be irradiated by simple statistics in controlled settings. Light sources very as far as the kinds of radiation they emit. Through experimentation we can narrow down the kinds of radiation that can heat surfaces of the Earth across a vacuum, mainly infrared. This is a consistent find with spectroscopic readings from the sun. The theory held out against a test of radiation percentiles as the independent variable, and heat transfer dependent variable, where a prediction of energy transfer was made and confirmed. Should any scientists dealing with light in much more complicated scenarios find evidence to indicate that light does not transfer energy in this way, other tests continue to question this common knowledge.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 08, 2008, 02:24:52 PM

A theory by definition has to be falsifiable. Radiation from the sun has been detected and demonstrated to be absorbed into the Earth in many forms. Should we discover another possibility, other tests are constructed.

No it hasn't been demonstrated. It has not been proven that photons exist. No one has seen an individual photon. When one looks at sunlight there is no guarantee that photons are intersecting the eye. There are alternatives to Photon Theory such as the Dark Sucker Theory.

Please don't pull this into a huge tangent and corrupt the thread. That said...

1. Yes it has.
2. I said radiation, not photons.
3. I skimmed the Dark Sucker Theory and it seems to be based on someones creativity rather than scientific observations leading to that train of thought.

1. Yes it has.

Do you have any evidence that what we know as "photons" actually exist?

2. I said radiation, not photons.

All radiation consists of photons, dumbshoe. 

3. I skimmed the Dark Sucker Theory and it seems to be based on someones creativity rather than scientific observations leading to that train of thought.

It's no more creative than the "tiny unobserved particles creates light" theory.

Do you have any evidence that what we know as "photons" actually exist?

Still, I said radiation.

All radiation consists of photons, dumbshoe. 

What proof do you have of this? You just questioned the validity of particle aspect of radiation, i.e. the existence of the photon.

It's no more creative than the "tiny particles create light" theory.

We have seen light behave like a particle in some instances. This would qualify as evidence.

We have seen light behave like a particle in some instances. This would qualify as evidence.

No. The Photo Electric Effect is perfectly explained by Dark Sucker Theory.

http://home.netcom.com/~rogermw/darksucker.html#photoelectric