# The FE as a model.

• 19 Replies
• 1837 Views
?

#### NTheGreat

• 1019
##### The FE as a model.
« on: June 01, 2009, 12:48:10 PM »
Rather than looking at evidence for or against a FE or RE, I would like to point out a different problem with the FE idea. Regardless of whether it is reality or not, the FE model is incredibly poor when compared to the RE model

I cannot think of a single situation where the FE model has any kind of benefit over the RE model. Calculating the position of the Sun, for example. In a RE model, it is a simple task of putting an observer on the surface of a sphere that's rotating around it's axis and the Sun, which will provide sufficient accuracy for most things. In the FE model however, beyond the rotation and movement of the Sun towards and away from the North pole, you need to factor in atmospheric reflection, the height of the Sun, potentially bendy light, the density of the atmosphere blocking the light at sunrise/sunset, and the factors that lead to perpetual sunlight at the South pole. Most of these factors are completely unknown, meaning that working out where the Sun is, or even working out if you can see it at all, is practically impossible under a FE model. Even in areas where the FE model can provide a simple way of explaining and predicting what we experience, such as a consistent apparent downwards force, the RE model is able to explain and predict just as simply.

I consider the idea of a FE bad not because of a lack of evidence for it, or a belief that the evidence of a RE is correct, but simply because trying to use a FE model is hopelessly impractical. Even if the Earth really was flat, what would it matter? The RE models still work perfectly well for everything we do.

?

#### utilitarianism

• 176
• do you know the muffin man...
##### Re: The FE as a model.
« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2009, 09:38:13 PM »
except nuclear energy.

if the earth is flat we can throw all the radioactive junk off the side of the earth.

plus space travel would be easier

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17526
##### Re: The FE as a model.
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2009, 10:49:38 AM »
Quote
I cannot think of a single situation where the FE model has any kind of benefit over the RE model

I can.

- Bedford Canal Experiment proves that the earth is flat.
- Sinking Ship Restore Experiment proves that the ship is not really behind a convex earth.
- The North Star has been seen over 20 degrees beyond the equator, proving that the earth is not a globe.
- An upwardly accelerating earth is a better explanation than "gravitons".
- The many discrepancies in the Apollo media put NASA to shame.
- The Flat Earth reflects human experience. A Round Earth does not.
- A moving sun reflects observation and experience. A moving earth does not.

Quote
Calculating the position of the Sun, for example. In a RE model, it is a simple task of putting an observer on the surface of a sphere that's rotating around it's axis and the Sun, which will provide sufficient accuracy for most things.

Except that RE cannot calculate the position of the sun to reflect reality. Whenever a daytime lunar eclipse occurs where the sun and moon are both seen in the sky during a lunar eclipse, completely demolishing the RE model, all we hear is "refraction did it!"

Quote
Even if the Earth really was flat, what would it matter?

It would matter quite a bit.

Quote
The RE models still work perfectly well for everything we do.

Actually, it doesn't. You have not demonstrated one instance of it doing so.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2009, 11:01:54 AM by Tom Bishop »

• 230
##### Re: The FE as a model.
« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2009, 10:56:51 AM »
If the earth really was flat, it would pretty much demolish all the rules of physics. And I dont think that ~10 years of conspiracy theories can beat thousands of years of experiments and testing. Somehow it just seems incorrect to me. :/

"We will not agree to anything until its generally denied."

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 39313
##### Re: The FE as a model.
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2009, 11:10:44 AM »
- The North Star has been seen over 20 degrees beyond the equator, proving that the earth is not a globe.

Tom, this is a neat trick considering that one's latitude is defined by the angle above the horizon from an observer to the north star.  I have already asked your several times to please provide documentation as to where and under what conditions this observation is supposed to have occurred and you still have not done so.  Please stop making this claim until you can support it with evidence.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

#### NTheGreat

• 1019
##### Re: The FE as a model.
« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2009, 12:33:23 PM »
I can.

- Bedford Canal Experiment proves that the earth is flat.
- Sinking Ship Restore Experiment proves that the ship is not really behind a convex earth.

Unfortunately most people here, aside from you, have been unable to replicate this, so the RE model works better for us in that regard.

Quote
- The North Star has been seen over 20 degrees beyond the equator, proving that the earth is not a globe.

But this doesn't make the FE model any better, as it can't predict where it's going to be either. And again, nobody's been able to replicate this.

Quote
- An upwardly accelerating earth is a better explanation than "gravitons".

How's modelling an upwards acceleration any easier than a downward force?

Quote
- The many discrepancies in the Apollo media put NASA to shame.

Likewise if they went to the Moon on a FE. That doesn't make the FE model any better.

Quote
- The Flat Earth reflects human experience. A Round Earth does not.

We're looking at a simple model, not a carbon copy of reality. A FE model is still far more complex than a RE model for the same results, even if it was what was really there.

Quote
- A moving sun reflects observation and experience. A moving earth does not.

Again, I couldn't care less what fit's a humans 'observation and experience'. I'm looking for the model that's simpler to use and predicts things well.

Quote
Except that RE cannot calculate the position of the sun to reflect reality. Whenever a daytime lunar eclipse occurs where the sun and moon are both seen in the sky during a lunar eclipse, completely demolishing the RE model, all we hear is "refraction did it!"

And the FE model can? Even if these supposed events occur, the RE model can still easily predict where these things are hundreds of years into the future. The FE model cannot.

Quote
It would matter quite a bit.

How? What would we need to change? All the RE modelled maps we have will still work fine, all the RE model physics will still give us the answers we want.

Quote
Actually, it doesn't. You have not demonstrated one instance of it doing so.

the RE model suggests that from my point of view, the Sun will rise, go across the sky, and set. I'm fairly certain that by the end of the day it will have done that. There's one instance of it predicting what I see happening.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2009, 03:44:38 PM by NTheGreat »

• 230
##### Re: The FE as a model.
« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2009, 12:59:34 PM »
- The North Star has been seen over 20 degrees beyond the equator, proving that the earth is not a globe.

If the earth was flat, you should be able to see the north star from everywhere on the earth, not only 20 degs beyond the equator.

"We will not agree to anything until its generally denied."

?

#### You guys are great

• 12
##### Re: The FE as a model.
« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2009, 03:03:16 PM »
Not to forget that they claim it's impossible to see the sun from a certain distance, the north star wouldn't be visable from that far either.

?

#### utilitarianism

• 176
• do you know the muffin man...
##### Re: The FE as a model.
« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2009, 03:06:55 PM »
if the earth is flat we can throw all the radioactive junk off the side of the earth.

Umm I think it would just sit there and float along side us.

Universal accelerator and all.

true, but without air resistance outside of the dark energy field it would move away from us continuously

?

#### Sentient Pizza

• 281
##### Re: The FE as a model.
« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2009, 12:08:08 PM »
if the earth is flat we can throw all the radioactive junk off the side of the earth.

Umm I think it would just sit there and float along side us.

Universal accelerator and all.

true, but without air resistance outside of the dark energy field it would move away from us continuously

Air resistance? If the air is moving along with the planet at the same rate being pushed allong by UA, there would be no air resistance in less you are moving latterally. SO off the side would not change a thing about its position other than to continue laterally away at the same rate it was pushed.

Thats part of the trouble with the whole FE Idea. Once you were able to break away from the surface you would just stay out in front of it. A simple jump and you could never come back unless you tied your self to the ground. Planes would not need to creat lift and helicopters would not need to keep their rotors spinning.
Your god was nailed to a cross. Mine carries a hammer...... any questions?

?

#### Redingold

• 164
##### Re: The FE as a model.
« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2009, 12:15:05 PM »
I lol'ed when Tom said that dark energy made more sense than gravitons. It seems to me that dark energy-ons (I assume the force is carried by subatomic particles like the electro-magnetic, weak and strong interactions) are the exact opposite of gravitons.

#### Jack1704

• Official Member
• 11311
• Francine?!?!?
##### Re: The FE as a model.
« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2009, 01:51:10 PM »
Once again Tom Bishop turns up with his magic wand casting spells and then he is confronted on how he does it, he disappears like a fart in the wind.
Stop all this nonesense and bring on the lapdancers.
I understand Jack1704. It's a Brit thing.

?

#### Redingold

• 164
##### Re: The FE as a model.
« Reply #12 on: June 03, 2009, 02:08:08 PM »
Once again Tom Bishop turns up with his magic wand casting spells and then he is confronted on how he does it, he disappears like a fart in the wind.

A true hero of FET.

?

#### utilitarianism

• 176
• do you know the muffin man...
##### Re: The FE as a model.
« Reply #13 on: June 03, 2009, 11:17:24 PM »
if the earth is flat we can throw all the radioactive junk off the side of the earth.

Umm I think it would just sit there and float along side us.

Universal accelerator and all.

true, but without air resistance outside of the dark energy field it would move away from us continuously

Air resistance? If the air is moving along with the planet at the same rate being pushed allong by UA, there would be no air resistance in less you are moving latterally. SO off the side would not change a thing about its position other than to continue laterally away at the same rate it was pushed.

Thats part of the trouble with the whole FE Idea. Once you were able to break away from the surface you would just stay out in front of it. A simple jump and you could never come back unless you tied your self to the ground. Planes would not need to creat lift and helicopters would not need to keep their rotors spinning.

only if you could jump or fly a heli a few hundred KMs into the air.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17526
##### Re: The FE as a model.
« Reply #14 on: June 05, 2009, 04:55:47 AM »
- The North Star has been seen over 20 degrees beyond the equator, proving that the earth is not a globe.

Tom, this is a neat trick considering that one's latitude is defined by the angle above the horizon from an observer to the north star.  I have already asked your several times to please provide documentation as to where and under what conditions this observation is supposed to have occurred and you still have not done so.  Please stop making this claim until you can support it with evidence.

All the evidence is in the literature. You can find references in my signature link.

Quote
Unfortunately most people here, aside from you, have been unable to replicate this, so the RE model works better for us in that regard.

All experiments in the literature have been replicated many times, peer reviewed and verified, over the last 150 years. Please consult the books.

Quote
But this doesn't make the FE model any better, as it can't predict where it's going to be either. And again, nobody's been able to replicate this.

Actually since it's impossible for the North Star to appear at that latitude, it does make the FE model better.

Quote
How's modelling an upwards acceleration any easier than a downward force?

Gravitons aren't a "force." Upwards acceleration, maybe that's a force or constant. Gravitons are tiny sub atomic particles which tell bodies which direction to move in through space. Ridiculous.

Quote
Likewise if they went to the Moon on a FE. That doesn't make the FE model any better.

Actually NASA being a sham does make the FE model better, because NASA's media is the sole and only 'evidence' an RE'er has at his disposal.

Quote
We're looking at a simple model, not a carbon copy of reality. A FE model is still far more complex than a RE model for the same results, even if it was what was really there.

FE is the simplest model.

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

Quote
Again, I couldn't care less what fit's a humans 'observation and experience'. I'm looking for the model that's simpler to use and predicts things well.

When I walk off the edge of a three foot drop off and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton particles emanating from the earth which allows them to accelerate my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?

Quote
How? What would we need to change? All the RE modelled maps we have will still work fine, all the RE model physics will still give us the answers we want.

Maps don't 'work fine'. Since the dawn of cartography there have been erroneous inconsistencies. Cartographers copy off each other and make stuff up all the time. From the 15th to 18th centuries California was even depicted in maps as an island off the coast of America.

Even in today's 'modern era', it's been found that maps made in the 1990's show features which don't even exist. Features near very populated areas no less. If you are interested in the subject I'd suggest the book How to Lie with Maps by Mark Monmonier.

Quote
And the FE model can? Even if these supposed events occur, the RE model can still easily predict where these things are hundreds of years into the future. The FE model cannot.

Oh yeah? When does RE say the next daytime lunar eclipse will occur?
« Last Edit: June 05, 2009, 05:08:32 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

#### Terrance

• 8
##### Re: The FE as a model.
« Reply #15 on: June 05, 2009, 05:03:58 AM »
Rather than looking at evidence for or against a FE or RE, I would like to point out a different problem with the FE idea. Regardless of whether it is reality or not, the FE model is incredibly poor when compared to the RE model

I cannot think of a single situation where the FE model has any kind of benefit over the RE model. Calculating the position of the Sun, for example. In a RE model, it is a simple task of putting an observer on the surface of a sphere that's rotating around it's axis and the Sun, which will provide sufficient accuracy for most things. In the FE model however, beyond the rotation and movement of the Sun towards and away from the North pole, you need to factor in atmospheric reflection, the height of the Sun, potentially bendy light, the density of the atmosphere blocking the light at sunrise/sunset, and the factors that lead to perpetual sunlight at the South pole. Most of these factors are completely unknown, meaning that working out where the Sun is, or even working out if you can see it at all, is practically impossible under a FE model. Even in areas where the FE model can provide a simple way of explaining and predicting what we experience, such as a consistent apparent downwards force, the RE model is able to explain and predict just as simply.

I consider the idea of a FE bad not because of a lack of evidence for it, or a belief that the evidence of a RE is correct, but simply because trying to use a FE model is hopelessly impractical. Even if the Earth really was flat, what would it matter? The RE models still work perfectly well for everything we do.
You should consider that on the creation of the earth, however it happened, the process didn't take into account 'trying to make people's lives easy'.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17526
##### Re: The FE as a model.
« Reply #16 on: June 05, 2009, 05:33:52 AM »
Quote
*Sigh.*

No they haven't Tom. You've been called out before on this. Your "peer reviewers" are all zetetics. Neither qualified scientifically to peer review, nor independent from Rowbotham.

All peer reviews were done by independent researchers.

Quote
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/lunar.html

To observe a selenelion or selenehelion you will need to be somewhere where the eclipse is occuring at sunrise or sunset.

Happy moon gazing!

That's not a prediction when the next daytime lunar eclipse will occur. Try again.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 39313
##### Re: The FE as a model.
« Reply #17 on: June 05, 2009, 06:44:36 AM »
- The North Star has been seen over 20 degrees beyond the equator, proving that the earth is not a globe.

Tom, this is a neat trick considering that one's latitude is defined by the angle above the horizon from an observer to the north star.  I have already asked your several times to please provide documentation as to where and under what conditions this observation is supposed to have occurred and you still have not done so.  Please stop making this claim until you can support it with evidence.

All the evidence is in the literature. You can find references in my signature link.

Tom, I've seen your "evidence" supporting this claim.  Aside from citing some anonymous mariner's claim, there is absolutely no mention of where these supposed sightings of Polaris 20 degrees or more south of the equator are supposed to have occurred or under what conditions.  In other words, no evidence at all other than "the navigator said so".
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

#### NTheGreat

• 1019
##### Re: The FE as a model.
« Reply #18 on: June 05, 2009, 12:39:14 PM »
Quote
All experiments in the literature have been replicated many times, peer reviewed and verified, over the last 150 years. Please consult the books.

Unfortunately all these experiments were done by people where are no longer here. Most people here, aside from you, have been unable to replicate this, so the RE model works better for us in that regard.

Quote
Actually since it's impossible for the North Star to appear at that latitude, it does make the FE model better.

why? If both models are unable to make the prediction, why is the FE model suddenly better? And again, and as other posters have said, this observation has never been replicated.

Quote
Gravitons aren't a "force." Upwards acceleration, maybe that's a force or constant. Gravitons are tiny sub atomic particles which tell bodies which direction to move in through space. Ridiculous.

And dark energy might as well be tiny sub atomic particles which tell bodies which direction to accelerate through space. Ridiculous.

The two are essentially equivalent. You can't say one's sensible and the other isn't.

Quote
Actually NASA being a sham does make the FE model better, because NASA's media is the sole and only 'evidence' an RE'er has at his disposal.

What does NASA matter here? NASA's truthfulness has little to do with which model predicts stuff better.

Quote
FE is the simplest model.

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

Are you suggesting that NASA doesn't launch rockets? And again, I don't care for NASA's truthfulness here. I'm looking for the best model to predict stuff.

Quote
When I walk off the edge of a three foot drop off and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton particles emanating from the earth which allows them to accelerate my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?

I could just replace 'gravitons' with 'dark energy' and 'the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me' with 'I've been pulled down to the Earth', and it would be just as effective as your point. The two are essentially equivalent, so there's little reason to try suggesting one is better than the other.

Quote
Oh yeah? When does RE say the next daytime lunar eclipse will occur?

When the next Lunar eclipse occurs, December the 21st of 2010. Assuming you don't count partial and penumbral eclipses, of course.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 39313
##### Re: The FE as a model.
« Reply #19 on: June 05, 2009, 12:59:30 PM »
Quote
Oh yeah? When does RE say the next daytime lunar eclipse will occur?

When the next Lunar eclipse occurs, December the 21st of 2010. Assuming you don't count partial and penumbral eclipses, of course.

RET will also tell you where the next daytime lunar eclipse will be visible:
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot/LEplot2001/LE2010Dec21T.pdf

You will want to be where the U2 event (the moon completely enters the earth's umbra) happens when the moon sets and the sun is rising or just before the U3 event (the moon begins to emerge from the earth's umbra) as the moon is rising and the sun is setting.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.