3100 miles...?

  • 25 Replies
  • 7404 Views
3100 miles...?
« on: December 02, 2008, 07:38:36 AM »
From the FAQs I see this:
In the "accelerating upwards" model, the stars, sun and moon are also accelerating upwards.
The stars are about as far as San Francisco is from Boston. (3100 miles)


If the stars, sun and moon are all accelerating upwards at the same rate as our flat earth, then why do we observe simple things like sunflares that come off the surface of the sun and then return?  If the sun were accelerating "upward" (whatever that arbitrary direction may be) then why don't we observe "gravity" (defined as the effect of this "upward" acceleration) only working in one direction as it is assumed to work on a flat earth?

Secondly, if the stars are 3100 miles above us... well, so many questions come to mind... I don't know where to start.  I guess I need some clarifications.  Are ALL the stars 3100 miles away?  And if so, what is producing asteroids and comets?  Where are they coming from and where are they going and why does it sometimes take 100 years for comets to come back around?  Is ALL of astronomy and cosmology, every scientist and observer and writer - are they ALL in on the conspiracy?  :-X   This is the greatest conspiracy EVER! 

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2008, 09:09:10 AM »
The stars are not all 3100 miles away. This is a bogus figure that can be derived with bad inferences of trigonometry.

Do have any video of sunflares? Do you know that they are falling back or could they be giving you the illusion of them falling? Could it be that the gas spreads out in space giving the illusion of falling? Another force such as electromagnetism could be at work. We do not know.

Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2008, 09:54:45 AM »
Quote
Do have any video of sunflares?

That seems like a rather impossible request. The only two ways you can observe a solar flare are during an eclipse, or from an area without an atmosphere. Eclipses are fairly short affairs making it hard to video a whole flare during one, and taking videos from space is the job of, surprise surprise, a space agency, meaning that you would dismiss it as a conspiracy.

Quote
Could it be that the gas spreads out in space giving the illusion of falling?

?\(o_?)/?

Quote
Another force such as electromagnetism could be at work.

I would expect an electromagnetic field strong enough to manipulate hydrogen so close to earth would be at least very easy to detect.

Quote
We do not know.

Then why hold with the model that consists of more unknowns?

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2008, 10:14:34 AM »
General relativity is not simple

Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2008, 04:39:40 PM »
Quote
General relativity is not simple

So?

Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2008, 09:32:38 PM »
General relativity is not simple
Just because it is simple does not mean it is wrong.

The "Simple" rule only applies if two theories give the same result. IF there is only one theory that is correct, but it is complicated, then it still should be taken over a theory that does not give the correct result.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • You are a pirate!
Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2008, 03:13:58 PM »
General relativity is not simple
It would be simple compared to a working FET.
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2008, 03:50:16 PM »
General relativity is not simple
Just because it is simple does not mean it is wrong.

The "Simple" rule only applies if two theories give the same result. IF there is only one theory that is correct, but it is complicated, then it still should be taken over a theory that does not give the correct result.
Ok, then FE is for me

*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • You are a pirate!
Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2008, 04:08:45 PM »
General relativity is not simple
Just because it is simple does not mean it is wrong.

The "Simple" rule only applies if two theories give the same result. IF there is only one theory that is correct, but it is complicated, then it still should be taken over a theory that does not give the correct result.
Ok, then FE is for me
FE is both complicated and incorrect.
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2008, 04:11:53 PM »
Quote
Ok, then FE is for me

You hold with FE because it is, in your eyes, a simpler model?

Why not then just say that every phenomena you see is done by God? A flimsy hypothesis, preventing any kind of laws being derived or any further work into how everything works, but it's wonderfully simple.

Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2008, 05:36:50 PM »
General relativity is not simple
Just because it is simple does not mean it is wrong.

The "Simple" rule only applies if two theories give the same result. IF there is only one theory that is correct, but it is complicated, then it still should be taken over a theory that does not give the correct result.
Ok, then FE is for me
The qualifier is that: if two theories give the same result (and they match reality). As FET can not account for certain observation that occur in reality, but RET can, then they are definitely not equivalent. If you take on FET despite knowing that it is not reality (ie there are observations you can make that are different to what FET says should be), this is bordering close to insanity (ie delusional, and if you subscribe to the conspiracy: Paranoid delusional).

The main argument for FET is that it offers an alternative explanation for some of the observations. But because it can not explain all of the observations, it is an inferior theory. RET does explain all of the observations, and so is the superior theory. Once FET can explain all of the observations, then it will be equivalent to RET. IF FET can then explain any new observations that RET can't, FET will become the superior theory.

Until then, because FET can't even explain current observations, it can not be true (but maybe certain changes to the theory would explain them).

The Zetetic Philosophy that Rowbotham promoted actually requires you to accept RET in the face of the current evidence. Zetetic Philosophy states that you should not make assumptions before looking at the evidence. It then says that you should look at all the evidence. Looking at all the evidence means that you have to look at the evidence that contradicts FET, like the Geodesics for the Surface of the Earth (that they mathematically specify a round surface for the Earth)

Remember if there is one piece of evidecne against something that can not be explained, then that theory must be wrong. Zetetic Method requires it.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2008, 06:15:31 PM »
Quote
Ok, then FE is for me

You hold with FE because it is, in your eyes, a simpler model?

Why not then just say that every phenomena you see is done by God? A flimsy hypothesis, preventing any kind of laws being derived or any further work into how everything works, but it's wonderfully simple.
Many people who believe the world was created by god have derived laws. Example: Einstein.

Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2008, 06:45:31 PM »
Quote
Ok, then FE is for me

You hold with FE because it is, in your eyes, a simpler model?

Why not then just say that every phenomena you see is done by God? A flimsy hypothesis, preventing any kind of laws being derived or any further work into how everything works, but it's wonderfully simple.
Many people who believe the world was created by god have derived laws. Example: Einstein.
Einstein was an atheist. When he used the term "God", it was a metaphor (and a sly dig at those that believed in a god).
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2008, 06:47:14 PM »
Quote
Ok, then FE is for me

You hold with FE because it is, in your eyes, a simpler model?

Why not then just say that every phenomena you see is done by God? A flimsy hypothesis, preventing any kind of laws being derived or any further work into how everything works, but it's wonderfully simple.
Many people who believe the world was created by god have derived laws. Example: Einstein.
Einstein was an atheist. When he used the term "God", it was a metaphor (and a sly dig at those that believed in a god).
Proof?
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 06:49:52 PM by Johannes Kepler »

*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • You are a pirate!
Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2008, 07:15:28 PM »
Quote
Ok, then FE is for me

You hold with FE because it is, in your eyes, a simpler model?

Why not then just say that every phenomena you see is done by God? A flimsy hypothesis, preventing any kind of laws being derived or any further work into how everything works, but it's wonderfully simple.
Many people who believe the world was created by god have derived laws. Example: Einstein.
Einstein was an atheist. When he used the term "God", it was a metaphor (and a sly dig at those that believed in a god).
Proof?
In a letter to an Atheist and other writings, Einstein suggested that he was an Agnostic, much like myself.
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2008, 07:20:39 PM »
agnostic != atheist

*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • You are a pirate!
Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2008, 07:21:56 PM »
agnostic != atheist
He actually was an anti-theist.
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

*

The One True Rat

  • 615
  • Cannot Understand Sarcasm
Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2008, 07:23:44 PM »
agnostic != atheist
agnostic = not sure of god
atheist = sure of not god

big difference

*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • You are a pirate!
Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2008, 07:25:07 PM »
I never said he was an atheist. I only said he was agnostic, and hated theism.
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #19 on: December 03, 2008, 07:32:01 PM »
Einstein changed his religious view over time after some wikipediaing... but he was religous at the time of his miracle year


better example: Max Plank religious, always religious ,great scientist

Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2008, 08:02:18 PM »
Einstein changed his religious view over time after some wikipediaing... but he was religous at the time of his miracle year
better example: Max Plank religious, always religious ,great scientist
Here is a quote from Einstein: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

That does not sound like he believes in a God.

So you are just repeating the "lie" about his religious convictions.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #21 on: December 03, 2008, 08:18:37 PM »
Sounds like a god to me.

Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #22 on: December 03, 2008, 09:05:29 PM »
So if I admire a singer because they are good, does that make them a god? I have had people admire me, does that mean that I am a god?

No, Einstein is expressing that he has a admiration for the beauty of the Universe. He is not advocating the existence of a Supernatural Entity (ie a God).
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #23 on: December 03, 2008, 09:25:31 PM »
Ok I don't care anymore. Think what you want about Einstein. Look at Max Plank. Great scientist and religious.

Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #24 on: December 03, 2008, 10:19:38 PM »
Ok I don't care anymore. Think what you want about Einstein. Look at Max Plank. Great scientist and religious.
If you note, I never said that a scientist could not be religious, only that you were wrong about Einstein. You asked for proof of my claim and I provided it. Do you concede this then (as it makes no iota of difference between RET and FET it is not really important)?

But all this is off topic.

So back to the source of this dispute: It was posted by NTheGreat: "Why not then just say that every phenomena you see is done by God? A flimsy hypothesis, preventing any kind of laws being derived or any further work into how everything works, but it's wonderfully simple."

What this is, is a not too good attempt at showing the "God of the Gaps" hypothesis. In this discussion it is not God, by the Conspiracy (or more precisely "Holograms") that "did it".

You keep claiming that Hologram technology can project the images of satellites without providing a means to do so. Then when one proposition is shot down, you come up with another proposal (with no explanation of how it works other than the conspirators are using unseen technologies). This Unseen technologies, is just like the God of the Gaps.

In the God of the Gaps argument, when we have a process that at the time is unknown how it operates, God is proposed as the reason that it works. When we learn what actually makes that process work, God is moved to some other gap as the explanation.

As you, yourself actually pointed out, you can never prove something via logic. It is only possible to disprove it.

Holograms as sky projectors have been disproved - because they don't work the way you require them to.

A standard 2D projector could not do it as the image of the Satellite will appear to rotate as it passes overhead (most decent telescopes have motors in them that allow you to track satellites across the sky - I know I have done it). If a 2D projector was used, this could be done for a single observer in a single location, but anybody else viewing that satellite would see it rotating weirdly (and serve as evidence of the conspirators). As we don't observe satellites rotating weirdly, then we can rule out a 2d projection.

As it can't be a 2D projection, and it can't be a hologram, then as there is no other proposal as to what it can be other than a real satellite, then we are left with the only proposition that Satellites are real. If Satellites are real, then the whole conspiracy thing looks shaky, and FE can not be true.

It is this reason that FEers are so desperate to disprove satellites as if Satellites exist, then FET can not be true.
Everyday household experimentation.

Re: 3100 miles...?
« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2008, 03:39:21 AM »
Quote
Ok I don't care anymore. Think what you want about Einstein. Look at Max Plank. Great scientist and religious.

Belief in a God is not the same thing as running your life under the hypothesis that every phenomena is caused by God. I was talking about the latter, not the former.