Falsification

Again, this is not a falsifiable experiment because FET and RET predict the same result for this experiment regardless of the mechanism.  An example of a falsifiable experiment would be something like the direction of the sunrise or sunset when observed from the equator on the day of the equinox.  RET predicts that sunrise would be due east while FET would predict that the sunrise should be well north of east.  See, different theories making different predictions for the same event and only one of them can be correct.

I could not find any proper explanation for that strange concept of inertial motion so I am just going to say that if the observer would also be accelerating in RE-model then I agree with you. If not then no unless you can provide me some proof that earth is actually accelerating upwards.

The observer in RE is also accelerating upwards.

Quote from: jargo on January 19, 2009, 08:54:58 AM

I could not find any proper explanation for that strange concept of inertial motion so I am just going to say that if the observer would also be accelerating in RE-model then I agree with you. If not then no unless you can provide me some proof that earth is actually accelerating upwards.

The observer in RE is also accelerating upwards.

Then I agree with you on this one.

Quote from: jargo on January 19, 2009, 08:54:58 AM

I could not find any proper explanation for that strange concept of inertial motion so I am just going to say that if the observer would also be accelerating in RE-model then I agree with you. If not then no unless you can provide me some proof that earth is actually accelerating upwards.

The observer in RE is also accelerating upwards.

Accelerating upwards by stepping off a chair?

Uh, no.

Uh, no.

Ah, sorry, I'd been away from the thread for a while and missed the change from stepping off a chair to dropping an apple.

*resolves to read threads more carefully before posting in future*

So I take it that no FE'er is willing to put forth an experiment that is falsifiable like the OP requested.

So I take it that no FE'er is willing to put forth an experiment that is falsifiable like the OP requested.

Would you like an experiment that can be performed by you or an experiment that is described in the literature?

Quote from: markjo on January 20, 2009, 07:15:13 PM

So I take it that no FE'er is willing to put forth an experiment that is falsifiable like the OP requested.

Would you like an experiment that can be performed by you or an experiment that is described in the literature?

Ideally a relatively simple experiment where FE and RE predict different results for the same event and can be peer reviewed by both sides.  Specialized equipment and/or techniques should be kept to a minimum.

Quote from: WastedTime on January 21, 2009, 06:47:33 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 20, 2009, 07:15:13 PM

So I take it that no FE'er is willing to put forth an experiment that is falsifiable like the OP requested.

Would you like an experiment that can be performed by you or an experiment that is described in the literature?

Ideally a relatively simple experiment where FE and RE predict different results for the same event and can be peer reviewed by both sides.  Specialized equipment and/or techniques should be kept to a minimum.

+1

An intrigued
Cinlef

Quote from: WastedTime on January 21, 2009, 06:47:33 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 20, 2009, 07:15:13 PM

So I take it that no FE'er is willing to put forth an experiment that is falsifiable like the OP requested.

Would you like an experiment that can be performed by you or an experiment that is described in the literature?

Ideally a relatively simple experiment where FE and RE predict different results for the same event and can be peer reviewed by both sides.  Specialized equipment and/or techniques should be kept to a minimum.

Care to propose one then? Mind you, under the constraints you have described, Newton's laws, for example, would be tested as accurate. So, I am not even sure it's worth pursuing.

Care to propose one then?

Cart before the horse.

Quote from: WastedTime on January 22, 2009, 05:51:00 AM

Care to propose one then?

Cart before the horse.

Don't think so. The gentleman insists on proving that Earth is round through an experiment. Why not let him offer one up?

He doesn't want to, he wants you to, but in order to do that you will have to make a prediction based on FET that would be mutually exclusive with RET when FET isn't even to the stage of explaining several known phenomenon and observations let alone to begin making predictions and he knows this.  Also, I hope you don't mind run-on sentences.

Going back to the OP, every model given by FE'rs predicts that the apparent size of the Sun and Moon will be less than half around dawn or dusk compared with its apparent size at noon. This simple fact comes from the proposed path of the light, that in every FE model is two to five times longer at dawn than at noon.

On the other hand, modern science states that the apparent size of the Sun and Moon changes only minimally due to refraction of the air, which will only make a barely measurable difference (less than 2%).

The experiment is simple: look at the Moon when it is close to the horizon; extend your arm and hold your thumb up; see if your thumb can just barely cover the image of the Moon; if it covers too much or too little, adjust the distance from your eyes to your finger accordingly. Then repeat the experiment when the Moon is close to the zenith.

To do the experiment with the Sun without burning your retinas, make a pinhole camera and look only at the image in the camera. Measure the size of the image at noon and dawn or dusk. Also check whether the image is well defined or just a lot of glare.

If there is any ground under any of the FE models, the Sun and the Moon will seem much smaller when close to the horizon. If modern science is right, you will not be able to find any difference in apparent size with the crude method explained.

Need a simpler experiment?

Going back to the OP, every model given by FE'rs predicts that the apparent size of the Sun and Moon will be less than half around dawn or dusk compared with its apparent size at noon. This simple fact comes from the proposed path of the light, that in every FE model is two to five times longer at dawn than at noon.

On the other hand, modern science states that the apparent size of the Sun and Moon changes only minimally due to refraction of the air, which will only make a barely measurable difference (less than 2%).

The experiment is simple: look at the Moon when it is close to the horizon; extend your arm and hold your thumb up; see if your thumb can just barely cover the image of the Moon; if it covers too much or too little, adjust the distance from your eyes to your finger accordingly. Then repeat the experiment when the Moon is close to the zenith.

To do the experiment with the Sun without burning your retinas, make a pinhole camera and look only at the image in the camera. Measure the size of the image at noon and dawn or dusk. Also check whether the image is well defined or just a lot of glare.

If there is any ground under any of the FE models, the Sun and the Moon will seem much smaller when close to the horizon. If modern science is right, you will not be able to find any difference in apparent size with the crude method explained.

Need a simpler experiment?

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Going back to the OP, every model given by FE'rs predicts that the apparent size of the Sun and Moon will be less than half around dawn or dusk compared with its apparent size at noon. This simple fact comes from the proposed path of the light, that in every FE model is two to five times longer at dawn than at noon.

Where did you get this from?

It is impossible to know the length of any path of light outside of our planet without viewing it from both here on our plane and also outside of our plane.  Without that, it is just guesswork and pretty math.  Even then, even more perspectives would be desired.  The Copernican principle is perhaps the most misused bastardization of math that continues to crop up in every single aspect of RE science and at times it has even found its way into FE theories.

He doesn't want to, he wants you to, but in order to do that you will have to make a prediction based on FET that would be mutually exclusive with RET when FET isn't even to the stage of explaining several known phenomenon and observations let alone to begin making predictions and he knows this.  Also, I hope you don't mind run-on sentences.

Or he wants an FET prediction to be made by FE'ers so as to find what phenomena would convince them of the RET. Also so that if we get different results the FET, the FET will not be retroactively changed to explain the results.

A clarifying
Cinlef

It is impossible to know the length of any path of light outside of our planet without viewing it from both here on our plane and also outside of our plane.  Without that, it is just guesswork and pretty math.  Even then, even more perspectives would be desired.  The Copernican principle is perhaps the most misused bastardization of math that continues to crop up in every single aspect of RE science and at times it has even found its way into FE theories.

I definitely touched a nerve here!

You do not have to know the exact path to know if the path is longer. It is a simple fact that in the FE models the shortest possible path of the light from the Sun to any place on Earth whose time is, say, 6 pm is longer than the path from the Sun to a place where the Sun is seen directly on the zenith. Look at any of the few diagrams that the FE'rs have done, and this fact is evident. You do not know how much longer the path is (it depends on the model you accept) but it is definitely longer than a straight path. And the straight path is at least three times longer.

Your only recourse right now is charging against maths because you are already at the end of the rope.

Quote from: Mr. Davis on January 22, 2009, 07:49:30 AM

It is impossible to know the length of any path of light outside of our planet without viewing it from both here on our plane and also outside of our plane.  Without that, it is just guesswork and pretty math.  Even then, even more perspectives would be desired.  The Copernican principle is perhaps the most misused bastardization of math that continues to crop up in every single aspect of RE science and at times it has even found its way into FE theories.

I definitely touched a nerve here!

You do not have to know the exact path to know if the path is longer. It is a simple fact that in the FE models the shortest possible path of the light from the Sun to any place on Earth whose time is, say, 6 pm is longer than the path from the Sun to a place where the Sun is seen directly on the zenith. Look at any of the few diagrams that the FE'rs have done, and this fact is evident. You do not know how much longer the path is (it depends on the model you accept) but it is definitely longer than a straight path. And the straight path is at least three times longer.

Your only recourse right now is charging against maths because you are already at the end of the rope.

You don't really know in either model was the point.

Quote from: trig on January 22, 2009, 07:12:07 AM

Going back to the OP, every model given by FE'rs predicts that the apparent size of the Sun and Moon will be less than half around dawn or dusk compared with its apparent size at noon. This simple fact comes from the proposed path of the light, that in every FE model is two to five times longer at dawn than at noon.

Where did you get this from?

Simple. Look at any diagram that has been published here showing how in "FE" the light from the Sun reaches Earth at different times of the day. The place where it is noon will be about 3000 miles away from the Sun because the Sun will be close to the zenith and it is hovering above Earth about 3000 miles above. Now look at the place where the Sun is and where the observer is when it is about 6 pm. The Sun is some 15000 miles away form an observer on the equator, or some 7000 miles away from an observer in the USA or Europe, so the best route the light could take is a straight line. Whatever path the light takes, it will have to travel at least 7000 miles to reach the observer.

Now, when you take into account that the light from the Sun that is distributed over the first observer has had only 3000 miles to disperse, but it has had at least 7000 miles to disperse while reaching the second observer, it is a simple conclusion that the light the second observer sees is at least 4 times less bright.

You don't really know in either model was the point.

Please, at least write a sentence that is grammatically correct.

What do you don't really know?

Quote from: Mr. Davis on January 22, 2009, 12:12:08 PM

You don't really know in either model was the point.

Please, at least write a sentence that is grammatically correct.

What do you don't really know?

Sorry;

In either model you don't really know; that was the point.


What can't one know?  One really can't know where anything is or what path anything travels.  We cannot directly and objectively observe the movements of objects, massive and massless, from our vantage point on Earth. 

To get the thread back on track, what sort of experiment could be done to falsify the FET and/or RET

A focused
Cinlef

Well, if FE'ers can't be sure how light travels (bendy light, aetherific eddification, etc.), then I don't know how they can trust any observations or perform any long range experiments at all.

To get the thread back on track, what sort of experiment could be done to falsify the FET and/or RET
A focused
Cinlef

Predict the next Lunar and/or Solar eclipse:
- In one corner: Tom Bishop armed with the fabulous ENaG
- In another corner: a bunch of noobs with the evil NASA's http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html

P.S. And since we are on the topic of predictions, I will make one. FE position on this is going to be that the eclipses are actually controlled by the world government conspiracy.

Predict the next Lunar and/or Solar eclipse:
- In one corner: Tom Bishop armed with the fabulous ENaG

Rowbotham already provided equations for finding the time, magnitude, and duration of future solar eclipses in Chapter 11 of Earth Not a Globe: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm

- In another corner: a bunch of noobs with the evil NASA's http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html

What equations are those predictions based on? I'm pretty sure it's just derived from the patterns in charts and tables of previous eclipses, which have been recorded for eons by astronomers, having nothing to do with the actual geometry of the sun, moon, and earth.

Quote

Predict the next Lunar and/or Solar eclipse:
- In one corner: Tom Bishop armed with the fabulous ENaG

Rowbotham already provided equations for finding the time, magnitude, and duration of future solar eclipses in Chapter 11 of Earth Not a Globe: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm

Quote

- In another corner: a bunch of noobs with the evil NASA's http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html

What equations are those predictions based on? I'm pretty sure it's just derived from the patterns in charts and tables of previous eclipses, which have been recorded for eons by astronomers, having nothing to do with the actual geometry of the sun, moon, and earth.

Where does he show how to predict future eclipses? Maybe I missed it because it looks like he only show how to calculate how long they will last

Quote

Predict the next Lunar and/or Solar eclipse:
- In one corner: Tom Bishop armed with the fabulous ENaG

Rowbotham already provided equations for finding the time, magnitude, and duration of future solar eclipses in Chapter 11 of Earth Not a Globe: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm

Did Rowbotham predict that tomorrow's eclipse will be an annular one?