Vagueness in the FAQ

The FAQ does a great job pointing out the views of FET. What it doesn't do is explain very much of how anything in FET works. The FAQ seems to make a rather large number a leaps of faith in flat out assumptions with little to no supporting evidence.
-What is your reason for believing the earth is flat(other than because it looks that way to us)? From what I can find, Rowbotham's experiments were flawed and the results could not be repeated.

-How do you know NASA is in on a conspiracy?

-How can you be sure the "shadow object" exists(because even to the naked human eye, you can clearly see what is blocking the sun in eclipses)?

-How do you know there is an ice wall if you have never been there?

-WHY do conditions get gradually worse as you get closer to the ice wall? That bit sounds like a fairy tale to keep children from getting too close.

-If the force acting as *gravity* is the universal acceleration then I am already moving at this speed. Assuming air resistance is negligible, if I jump I will be artificially increasing my speed such that I should be traveling faster than the UA. Should I not fly away from or above the Earth if there is no force pulling me back down?

-How does the dark energy field work? You cannot simply assume the existence of some force and provide no physical explanation for it.

-The same can be said of the shadow object. What is it made of, how big is it, why is it not detectable? Its existence cannot be simply assumed and believed on faith alone.

-Are you really about to tell me that every single one of the TENS OF THOUSANDS of photos and videos of Earth from space have been faked? If so, what about every other photo and video in existence? Why are photos and videos accepted as court evidence?

-Followup of the previous question:

PLEASE NOTE: This means that pictures confirming the roundness or flatness of the Earth DO NOT CONSTITUTE VALID PROOF.

Indeed it is possible that pictures can be faked. But in reality, what is the probability that every single one is a fake?

-What is NASA's motive? Clearly they are expending unbelievable amounts of money and resources to keep this whole thing covered up. What kind of economic, military, or political power do the leaders of this conspiracy stand to gain by telling people the planet is flat rather than spherical?

-If NASA indeed has the resources and willingness to deceive the entire human race and has faked thousands upon thousands of photos and videos, surely they can make one small website disappear without arousing suspicion. If they have the resources you claim they do then they are as close to god as any human being or organization will ever be. If what you say about their size and power is true this website should have been shut down long ago.

-What do you suppose would happen if someone in a plane flew in a straight line? No navigational equipment, simply setting the plane in a direction and locking the steering. Would they reach the ice wall, and if so what would happen should they cross the wall?

Its late and I'm tired - I didn't proof read this, don't jump on me for grammatical errors .

I'm not FET expert but I'll try to answer as many questions as I can.

-How do you know NASA is in on a conspiracy?
How do you know NASA isn't a conspiracy? What good has NASA done besides provide with a bunch of cool looking faked photos?

-How do you know there is an ice wall if you have never been there?
There have been photos taken (which assumably are fake according to your post) - there are some pictures of the ice wall somewhere on this forum.

-WHY do conditions get gradually worse as you get closer to the ice wall? That bit sounds like a fairy tale to keep children from getting too close.
It get's colder. Ever been to high up in the mountains?

-Are you really about to tell me that every single one of the TENS OF THOUSANDS of photos and videos of Earth from space have been faked? If so, what about every other photo and video in existence? Why are photos and videos accepted as court evidence?
I could fake a few hundred photos myself about something, that doesn't mean 1 of them is real. Photos and videos are accepted as court evidence because I think it's safe to say the majority of people in the courtroom aren't FET believers, therefore they wouldn't know the difference.

-What is NASA's motive? Clearly they are expending unbelievable amounts of money and resources to keep this whole thing covered up. What kind of economic, military, or political power do the leaders of this conspiracy stand to gain by telling people the planet is flat rather than spherical?
Money. Simple enough.

-What do you suppose would happen if someone in a plane flew in a straight line? No navigational equipment, simply setting the plane in a direction and locking the steering. Would they reach the ice wall, and if so what would happen should they cross the wall?
Why would anyone want to do that? They would die from the harsh conditions near the ice wall or get shot down by the guards.

-What do you suppose would happen if someone in a plane flew in a straight line? No navigational equipment, simply setting the plane in a direction and locking the steering.

You would crash within a few minutes.

I think it's safe to say the majority of people in the courtroom aren't FET believers, therefore they wouldn't know the difference.

 

actually i think its safe to say not 1 FET believer is qualified to spot doctored photo or video..
if FET had some1 qualified u wouldnt get all these post sayin "it COULD be faked, look at this sci-fi picture".. u would just get a nice simple post sayin "this is faked because..."

there is 2 possible reasons for this..
1. TFES doesnt have any idea how to spot a doctored photo
or
2. its not in TFES's best interest to post the results when they do try to spot a doctored photo

conciderin the vast amount of photos and film from NASA u would have thought TFES would have been able to prove 1 of them to be doctored.. they dont even have 1 and it doesnt appear any measures r bein takin to get 1 
the phrase "ignorance is bliss" springs to mind..

but they COULD be faked.. right?
sigh.. im gonna stop rantin before i start talkin about pink unicorns, flyin spaghetti monsters and garden fairies..

Quote from: Verna on May 19, 2009, 05:20:16 AM

I think it's safe to say the majority of people in the courtroom aren't FET believers, therefore they wouldn't know the difference.

 

actually i think its safe to say not 1 FET believer is qualified to spot doctored photo or video..
if FET had some1 qualified u wouldnt get all these post sayin "it COULD be faked, look at this sci-fi picture".. u would just get a nice simple post sayin "this is faked because..."

there is 2 possible reasons for this..
1. TFES doesnt have any idea how to spot a doctored photo
or
2. its not in TFES's best interest to post the results when they do try to spot a doctored photo

conciderin the vast amount of photos and film from NASA u would have thought TFES would have been able to prove 1 of them to be doctored.. they dont even have 1 and it doesnt appear any measures r bein takin to get 1 
the phrase "ignorance is bliss" springs to mind..

but they COULD be faked.. right?
sigh.. im gonna stop rantin before i start talkin about pink unicorns, flyin spaghetti monsters and garden fairies..

Pink unicorns are actually what guard the ice wall.

And please, before you make another post, use proper English and grammar.

And please, before you make another post, use proper English and grammar.

u would have thought after the amount of times i hear that i would listen.. o well

altho i could revise my post if u got confused.. i wouldnt want to give u another reason to post a pointless comment, completely ignorin what i actually said but somehow thinkin it was worth postin anyway 

Quote from: Verna on May 19, 2009, 06:22:39 AM

And please, before you make another post, use proper English and grammar.

u would have thought after the amount of times i hear that i would listen.. o well

altho i could revise my post if u got confused.. i wouldnt want to give u another reason to post a pointless comment, completely ignorin what i actually said but somehow thinkin it was worth postin anyway 

Here, to respond to your stupid comments:

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. Photos can be faked in a variety of ways and can be seen as fake for any number of reasons. There's obviously no official way of telling if a photo is faked except seeing a person actually create it. You can do some simple googling and find plenty of people explaining why specific photos are fake. FET believers, believe NASA is a conspiracy so why do we need to waste our time analyzing each and every picture people throw at us.

Here, to respond to your stupid comments:

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. Photos can be faked in a variety of ways and can be seen as fake for any number of reasons. There's obviously no official way of telling if a photo is faked except seeing a person actually create it. You can do some simple googling and find plenty of people explaining why specific photos are fake. FET believers, believe NASA is a conspiracy so why do we need to waste our time analyzing each and every picture people throw at us.

*facepalm*

"There's obviously no official way of telling if a photo is faked except seeing a person actually create it."
o yea i forgot about that, that must be why theres countless UFO films, and none of it has been proved fake.. o wait, sorry im talkin out my ass again, theres loads of give aways for fake footage

"FET believers, believe NASA is a conspiracy so why do we need to waste our time analyzing each and every picture people throw at us."
i asked for 1.. just 1..
and i would say its a waste of time believin a conspiracy when u cant even be bothered to test if its right..


yep, my stupid comments? 

Quote from: Verna on May 19, 2009, 06:45:18 AM

Here, to respond to your stupid comments:

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. Photos can be faked in a variety of ways and can be seen as fake for any number of reasons. There's obviously no official way of telling if a photo is faked except seeing a person actually create it. You can do some simple googling and find plenty of people explaining why specific photos are fake. FET believers, believe NASA is a conspiracy so why do we need to waste our time analyzing each and every picture people throw at us.

*facepalm*

"There's obviously no official way of telling if a photo is faked except seeing a person actually create it."
o yea i forgot about that, that must be why theres countless UFO films, and none of it has been proved fake.. o wait, sorry im talkin out my ass again, theres loads of give aways for fake footage

"FET believers, believe NASA is a conspiracy so why do we need to waste our time analyzing each and every picture people throw at us."
i asked for 1.. just 1..
and i would say its a waste of time believin a conspiracy when u cant even be bothered to test if its right..


yep, my stupid comments? 

I'm no photo analyst. That's why I said use google. USE IT or gtfo. Thanks.

I'm no photo analyst. That's why I said use google. USE IT or gtfo. Thanks.

i know ur not a photo analyst? i think i already pointed that out in an earlier post..
im not sure what u not bein a photo analyst has to do with me usin google.. but ill take ur word that u made sense on that

but anyway, i used google before i even started postin in this thread.. loads of examples of the many different ways to spot forgery..
im really not sure where ur goin with that

and u remember when i talked about pointless posts which dont have much to do with what i actually said?
ur doin it again

Quote from: Verna on May 19, 2009, 07:12:19 AM

I'm no photo analyst. That's why I said use google. USE IT or gtfo. Thanks.

i know ur not a photo analyst? i think i already pointed that out in an earlier post..
im not sure what u not bein a photo analyst has to do with me usin google.. but ill take ur word that u made sense on that

but anyway, i used google before i even started postin in this thread.. loads of examples of the many different ways to spot forgery..
im really not sure where ur goin with that

and u remember when i talked about pointless posts which dont have much to do with what i actually said?
ur doin it again

I continue to repeat myself because obviously you aren't listening.

I may have to resort to typing in capital letters soon - maybe then you'll hear me

I continue to repeat myself because obviously you aren't listening.

I may have to resort to typing in capital letters soon - maybe then you'll hear me

AND U REMEMBER WHEN I TALKED ABOUT POINTLESS POST WHICH DONT HAVE MUCH TO DO WITH WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID?
UR DOIN IT AGAIN


u mean abit like that? 


its unusual for me to miss the point, but if u insist u made 1 then ill have to take ur word for it..
maybe u could dumb it down for me.. what was this point u needed to repeat?
spell it out for me

Quote from: Verna on May 19, 2009, 07:43:28 AM

I continue to repeat myself because obviously you aren't listening.

I may have to resort to typing in capital letters soon - maybe then you'll hear me

AND U REMEMBER WHEN I TALKED ABOUT POINTLESS POST WHICH DONT HAVE MUCH TO DO WITH WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID?
UR DOIN IT AGAIN


u mean abit like that? 


its unusual for me to miss the point, but if u insist u made 1 then ill have to take ur word for it..
maybe u could dumb it down for me.. what was this point u needed to repeat?
spell it out for me

With my first reply, I kindly answered SOME of your questions. You then responded with nonsense. So I tried to repeat myself so you would understand. You obviously still do not understand and are an uneducated moron who should now gtfo.

Every post I have made has made a point. Before it was me trying to get you to comprehend what I was saying. Now it's me basically sayin, you're an idiot.

With my first reply, I kindly answered SOME of your questions. You then responded with nonsense. So I tried to repeat myself so you would understand. You obviously still do not understand and are an uneducated moron who should now gtfo.

Every post I have made has made a point. Before it was me trying to get you to comprehend what I was saying. Now it's me basically sayin, you're an idiot.

with ur first reply u stated pink unicorns guarded the ice wall.. then u said theres no way to tell a forgery except if u watch them do it, u backed this up by basically sayin google says theres alot of different ways u can tell a forgery.. makes sense? i thought not
then u proceded to remind me that ur not a photo analyst, which i thought was kind of u.. i might have forgot what points i made in my first post
altho somehow u decided that meant i need to use google more.. which i still dont understand the connection
and ur lastest posts consist of u stampin ur feet insistin ur makin a point..


if this is what u class as makin points, then good luck to ya.. but i dont think i could call it that


let me remind u of the point of my first post.. u said somethin about people who arent FET believers not bein able to spot a doctored photo.. i pointed out FET believers obviously dont have a fukin clue about spottin doctored photos either..
and then i decided to point out TFES doesnt actually have any desire to prove a NASA photo is doctored.. and i kinda hinted at why

i didnt ask any questions and in fact, u failed to adress anythin i said in my original post..


and theres no need to resort to ad hominems.. i already know im an idiot 

Quote from: Verna on May 19, 2009, 08:23:57 AM

With my first reply, I kindly answered SOME of your questions. You then responded with nonsense. So I tried to repeat myself so you would understand. You obviously still do not understand and are an uneducated moron who should now gtfo.

Every post I have made has made a point. Before it was me trying to get you to comprehend what I was saying. Now it's me basically sayin, you're an idiot.

with ur first reply u stated pink unicorns guarded the ice wall.. then u said theres no way to tell a forgery except if u watch them do it, u backed this up by basically sayin google says theres alot of different ways u can tell a forgery.. makes sense? i thought not
then u proceded to remind me that ur not a photo analyst, which i thought was kind of u.. i might have forgot what points i made in my first post
altho somehow u decided that meant i need to use google more.. which i still dont understand the connection
and ur lastest posts consist of u stampin ur feet insistin ur makin a point..


if this is what u class as makin points, then good luck to ya.. but i dont think i could call it that


let me remind u of the point of my first post.. u said somethin about people who arent FET believers not bein able to spot a doctored photo.. i pointed out FET believers obviously dont have a fukin clue about spottin doctored photos either..
and then i decided to point out TFES doesnt actually have any desire to prove a NASA photo is doctored.. and i kinda hinted at why

i didnt ask any questions and in fact, u failed to adress anythin i said in my original post..


and theres no need to resort to ad hominems.. i already know im an idiot 

Pink unicorn was a joke.

IMO there is no way to tell if a photo is fake, but you demanded a different answer - so I told you to use google and figure out how people analyze photos.

Does that help?

The first post is actually pretty good. Could some FET's give some proper answers to those questions?

Oh wait, they can't.......

Pink unicorn was a joke.

IMO there is no way to tell if a photo is fake, but you demanded a different answer - so I told you to use google and figure out how people analyze photos.

Does that help?

i know the pink unicorns were a joke.. but im a pedantic bastard if u hadnt noticed
any chance the ice wall was a joke too? (its hard to tell sometimes with FET)

now im hopin u mean that not all faked photo can be proved to be fake.. and not thats its impossible to tell if any photo is fake..
again im probably bein pedantic, u must mean the first.. right?
otherwise no amount of google will save u from that rather silly claim..

and like i said, i googled this before i posted my first post..

it would be quicker if u was to just inform me of ur findins on google, because obviously iv come to a different conclusion to u regardin whether NASA photos could be proved to be faked or not..


oh, and yes that does help.. ull have to spell everythin out to me, im an idiot remember? 

Quote from: Verna on May 19, 2009, 10:25:38 AM

Pink unicorn was a joke.

IMO there is no way to tell if a photo is fake, but you demanded a different answer - so I told you to use google and figure out how people analyze photos.

Does that help?

i know the pink unicorns were a joke.. but im a pedantic bastard if u hadnt noticed
any chance the ice wall was a joke too? (its hard to tell sometimes with FET)

now im hopin u mean that not all faked photo can be proved to be fake.. and not thats its impossible to tell if any photo is fake..
again im probably bein pedantic, u must mean the first.. right?
otherwise no amount of google will save u from that rather silly claim..

and like i said, i googled this before i posted my first post..

it would be quicker if u was to just inform me of ur findins on google, because obviously iv come to a different conclusion to u regardin whether NASA photos could be proved to be faked or not..


oh, and yes that does help.. ull have to spell everythin out to me, im an idiot remember? 

Here let me assist you:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=how+to+tell+if+a+photo+is+fake&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=how+to+tell+if+a+photo+is+fake&fp=Li-R6mbKWrc

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=nasa+fake+photos&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=nasa+fake+photos&fp=Li-R6mbKWrc

And OMG look what I found!

I'm not FET expert but I'll try to answer as many questions as I can.

-How do you know NASA is in on a conspiracy?
How do you know NASA isn't a conspiracy? What good has NASA done besides provide with a bunch of cool looking faked photos?

--You cannot use lack of evidence as evidence. Simply because I cannot "prove" that NASA is not in on a conspiracy does not confirm that they are in fact in on a conspiracy. Everyone who believes the CIA played a role in JFK's assassination or that the moon landing was faked has physical evidence that supports such a conspiracy having existed. I have yet to see one shred of evidence to support the "NASA conspiracy". Countless chemical, medical, and technological breakthroughs have come about from studying the sun and other celestial bodies from beyond the interference of the Earth's atmosphere.

-How do you know there is an ice wall if you have never been there?
There have been photos taken (which assumably are fake according to your post) - there are some pictures of the ice wall somewhere on this forum.

--Wait...photographic evidence is being used to explain FET? I though NO photographic evidence was accepted for anything pertaining to the Earth's shape because of the ease at which such a photo could be doctored.

-WHY do conditions get gradually worse as you get closer to the ice wall? That bit sounds like a fairy tale to keep children from getting too close.
It get's colder. Ever been to high up in the mountains?

--Ice breaker ships can navigate through thin sea ice at the north pole. People have climbed Everest. It us even said that NASA could have armed guards near the ice wall, thus it is not impossible to survive there.

-Are you really about to tell me that every single one of the TENS OF THOUSANDS of photos and videos of Earth from space have been faked? If so, what about every other photo and video in existence? Why are photos and videos accepted as court evidence?
I could fake a few hundred photos myself about something, that doesn't mean 1 of them is real. Photos and videos are accepted as court evidence because I think it's safe to say the majority of people in the courtroom aren't FET believers, therefore they wouldn't know the difference.

--Simply believing in FET or not does not make a picture fake or real. Photos are used as courtroom evidence because for the most part they are reliable and it is very difficult to fake a photo that will stand up to professional scrutiny.

-What is NASA's motive? Clearly they are expending unbelievable amounts of money and resources to keep this whole thing covered up. What kind of economic, military, or political power do the leaders of this conspiracy stand to gain by telling people the planet is flat rather than spherical?
Money. Simple enough.

--How are they making money? They must be using massive amounts of money to keep people quiet and to keep the ice wall guarded, stage fake shuttle launches, ect.

17 posts and only one or two serious replies and those were from RE'ers

Any FE'ers want to take a shot at those questions?

--You cannot use lack of evidence as evidence. Simply because I cannot "prove" that NASA is not in on a conspiracy does not confirm that they are in fact in on a conspiracy. Everyone who believes the CIA played a role in JFK's assassination or that the moon landing was faked has physical evidence that supports such a conspiracy having existed. I have yet to see one shred of evidence to support the "NASA conspiracy". Countless chemical, medical, and technological breakthroughs have come about from studying the sun and other celestial bodies from beyond the interference of the Earth's atmosphere.

A simple assassination is a lot different than the earth being flat. Maybe you should lurk more in these forums if you want evidence to support the NASA conspiracy.

--Wait...photographic evidence is being used to explain FET? I though NO photographic evidence was accepted for anything pertaining to the Earth's shape because of the ease at which such a photo could be doctored.

The ice wall doesn't prove that the earth is flat. It's just a wall.

--Ice breaker ships can navigate through thin sea ice at the north pole. People have climbed Everest. It us even said that NASA could have armed guards near the ice wall, thus it is not impossible to survive there.

At the ice wall and beyond it gets extremely colder than at Mount Everest or other "cold" places.

--Simply believing in FET or not does not make a picture fake or real. Photos are used as courtroom evidence because for the most part they are reliable and it is very difficult to fake a photo that will stand up to professional scrutiny.

Yes, supposedly "professional" and "knowledgeable" and "educated".

--How are they making money? They must be using massive amounts of money to keep people quiet and to keep the ice wall guarded, stage fake shuttle launches, ect.

Read the FAQ.

A simple assassination is a lot different than the earth being flat. Maybe you should lurk more in these forums if you want evidence to support the NASA conspiracy.

  What do you think is hardest to hide, an assisination done by the CIA or the Earth being flat? You can NOT hide the shape of the Earth, circumnavigation happening on a grand scale, a giant ice-wall that covers the entire Earth, the universe and everything else for the public without them finding out. Which is why there is no Flat Earth. Common sense, anyone?

Oh, and btw - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A NASA CONSPIRACY

The ice wall doesn't prove that the earth is flat. It's just a wall.

It proves that we have been lied to by a conspiracy. Yeah, it pretty much shows the Earth being flat, if there actually was an ice-wall.

At the ice wall and beyond it gets extremely colder than at Mount Everest or other "cold" places.

  Do you have any evidence for your claims? How can there be guards at the icewall then? What happens if you fly directly west from America for 2-3 hours?

Yes, supposedly "professional" and "knowledgeable" and "educated".

What's your point? That people with educations is in on the conspiracy too?

Read the FAQ.

The FAQ is a waste of time, since everything in it is bullshit.

Do you have any evidence for your claims? How can there be guards at the icewall then? What happens if you fly directly west from America for 2-3 hours?

If you fly "west" (in your sense) from America you would end up in the Pacific Ocean. If you continue to fly "west" you will end up at Australia or slightly "north" of there.

It is assumed that there are guards at the icewall. Anyone who comes into contact with the guards are killed.

-How do you know there is an ice wall if you have never been there?

-If the force acting as *gravity* is the universal acceleration then I am already moving at this speed. Assuming air resistance is negligible, if I jump I will be artificially increasing my speed such that I should be traveling faster than the UA. Should I not fly away from or above the Earth if there is no force pulling me back down?

-How does the dark energy field work? You cannot simply assume the existence of some force and provide no physical explanation for it.

-The same can be said of the shadow object. What is it made of, how big is it, why is it not detectable? Its existence cannot be simply assumed and believed on faith alone.

-What do you suppose would happen if someone in a plane flew in a straight line? No navigational equipment, simply setting the plane in a direction and locking the steering. Would they reach the ice wall, and if so what would happen should they cross the wall?

-How do you know the moon exists if you have never been there?

-In order to escape the earth, you would need to vertically accelerate faster than 9.8 meters/second. Within the atmosphere this isn't too hard. We're being pushed up by the earth and the air, so using a balloon or a plane or even by jumping you can reach slightly above the earth.

However, when you reach the upper atmosphere balloons and airplanes stop working. They require air to keep them accelerating at the same rate as the earth. Once beyond the atmosphere there is nothing to "push" off of, thereby making spaceflight impossible.

Your jumping example makes little sense. You would simply increase your speed, and then the earth would accelerate behind you until it reached you.

-We assume the dark energy field exists because we observe an acceleration of 9.8 meters per second. If you let go of a ball, it will fall to the ground with increasing speed. That's experimental evidence proving the existence of the dark energy field. (Or, in others opinions, gravity)

-How do you propose we detect the shadow object? We normally observe celestial objects by... observing them. If it is at the same altitude as the sun then it would not reflect light. The only clue would be having something block out starlight. My theory is that the shadow object is something like a filter which removes sunlight but does not effect the whiter starlight. '

-Due to air currents, it would depend enormously on where you started. For instance, if you began in Iceland and traveled south you would be caught in the gulf stream.

If, on the other hand, you could somehow flight straight in spite of wind, your compass would inform you that you were gradually turning south.

-How do you know the moon exists if you have never been there?

Perhaps its because....I can see it at night? That must have something to do with it...

-In order to escape the earth, you would need to vertically accelerate faster than 9.8 meters/second. Within the atmosphere this isn't too hard. We're being pushed up by the earth and the air, so using a balloon or a plane or even by jumping you can reach slightly above the earth.

However, when you reach the upper atmosphere balloons and airplanes stop working. They require air to keep them accelerating at the same rate as the earth. Once beyond the atmosphere there is nothing to "push" off of, thereby making spaceflight impossible.

Newtons third law of motion. Flame and exhaust from a rockets engine will be expelled out of the bottom of the thrusters. The gases being expelled will then exert a force on the spacecraft itself. This is the basic principle behind proposed ion based engines. You can accelerate without an atmosphere.

Your jumping example makes little sense. You would simply increase your speed, and then the earth would accelerate behind you until it reached you.

As explained in the FAQ. the UA accelerates everything in the universe. We are currently traveling at the UA speed. If you jump you are lifting above the ground, are you not? You must therefore be increasing your speed to the "UA+(speed of your body from jumping)". Without gravity to pull you back to earth and due to the weakness of air resistance you should theoretically fly off into space.

-We assume the dark energy field exists because we observe an acceleration of 9.8 meters per second. If you let go of a ball, it will fall to the ground with increasing speed. That's experimental evidence proving the existence of the dark energy field. (Or, in others opinions, gravity)

Why rename gravity then? It seems this dark energy field has the exact same properties and characteristics of gravity...

-How do you propose we detect the shadow object? We normally observe celestial objects by... observing them. If it is at the same altitude as the sun then it would not reflect light. The only clue would be having something block out starlight. My theory is that the shadow object is something like a filter which removes sunlight but does not effect the whiter starlight. '

I was not aware that the photons given off by one star differ from those given off by another. All start emit white light and thus all stars emit a broad-range spectrum of visible light. If I am wrong and it is in fact a form of filter, what is it made of? Why does it filter one form of light and not another? How big is it?

Quote

-How do you know the moon exists if you have never been there?

Perhaps its because....I can see it at night? That must have something to do with it...

I can see it during the day too! OMG WHAT HAPPENS!

Quote

-How do you propose we detect the shadow object? We normally observe celestial objects by... observing them. If it is at the same altitude as the sun then it would not reflect light. The only clue would be having something block out starlight. My theory is that the shadow object is something like a filter which removes sunlight but does not effect the whiter starlight. '

I was not aware that the photons given off by one star differ from those given off by another. All start emit white light and thus all stars emit a broad-range spectrum of visible light. If I am wrong and it is in fact a form of filter, what is it made of? Why does it filter one form of light and not another? How big is it?

Ummm... No.  Stars do not emit white light.  Perhaps you should brush up on a process called spectral analysis.

Quote from: echa on May 20, 2009, 05:39:28 PM

Quote

-How do you propose we detect the shadow object? We normally observe celestial objects by... observing them. If it is at the same altitude as the sun then it would not reflect light. The only clue would be having something block out starlight. My theory is that the shadow object is something like a filter which removes sunlight but does not effect the whiter starlight. '

I was not aware that the photons given off by one star differ from those given off by another. All start emit white light and thus all stars emit a broad-range spectrum of visible light. If I am wrong and it is in fact a form of filter, what is it made of? Why does it filter one form of light and not another? How big is it?

Ummm... No.  Stars do not emit white light.  Perhaps you should brush up on a process called spectral analysis.

When you look at a star it appears white. There would be no colors on earth other than purple, red, and orange(and a few others) if only the line spectrum of elements being fused were given off by stars. Even if you are going off of line spectrum emissions the stars will still appear the same. The vast majority (99%) of stars will show hydrogen and few others will show small percentages of helium.

When you look at a star it appears white.

And red and blue. If you look harder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigel

Quote from: echa on May 20, 2009, 09:36:28 PM

When you look at a star it appears white.

And red and blue. If you look harder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigel

My basic point is that all stars emit white light. There would be very few colors on earth if the light given off by stars were any single color.

Even if I'm entirely wrong, explain how other stars with similar masses, diameters and ages to that of the sun are not obscured by the shadow object and the shadow object only effects the sun and not other stars.

bump for great justice...

Also, explain this:
http://www.jackassworld.com/videos/1581777/210686
Fast forward to one minute for the view of the earth.
Unless of course, MTV is in on the conspiracy with NASA. I forgot that every picture and video in existence was made on a computer. What exactly did we make cameras for anyway?