Flaws in FE model

I will go back and remove any excess language...the problem we face here is this: I have scientifically proved that there is no such thing as a big bang, or a superstring theory, without these two, the round earth is over right now.

I have researched more than anyone heliocosmology, and I have proved that nuclear energy cannot be the energy source for the sun, please read those five solar paradoxes.

There is no such thing as attractive gravitation, without this, the spherical earth theory is dead; GTR is a PRESSURE TYPE gravity theory, which can only work on a flat earth.

sentient pizza and equinox, those links include the very best information at the present time, you will not be able to find anything better; no big bang, no superstring theory, no attractive gravitation, and no axially rotating spherical earth. Thank you.

I LOVE it! The levee defence is undeniable:
 I proved it because I proved it. Look at my posts and you will see that i proved it. This thread and all like it are pointless because I proved it. I'm now aiting for you to prove that I did not prove it.

The earth was thought round long before any big bang thoery (a theory mind you) and it worked in that model.
The earth was thought round long before superstring theory (again a theory) and it works with or without that model.

Th earth is universally accepted as round by every single scientific comunity, and culture ever known to man throughout history. With the exception of a handfull of people on this forrum, and a few small religeous groups here and there. It does not matter how much reasearch you have done on the matter because allong the way you have had to dismiss much more science and data than what you have found to support your ideas.

Please pick a specific arguement that has been made in the OP and discuss it with your facts and data.

I will go back and remove any excess language...the problem we face here is this: I have scientifically proved that there is no such thing as a big bang, or a superstring theory, without these two, the round earth is over right now.

I have researched more than anyone heliocosmology, and I have proved that nuclear energy cannot be the energy source for the sun, please read those five solar paradoxes.

There is no such thing as attractive gravitation, without this, the spherical earth theory is dead; GTR is a PRESSURE TYPE gravity theory, which can only work on a flat earth.

sentient pizza and equinox, those links include the very best information at the present time, you will not be able to find anything better; no big bang, no superstring theory, no attractive gravitation, and no axially rotating spherical earth. Thank you.

sp, you have not studied the round earth theory at all...

If you believe or not, there were only 12 persons in the whole antiquity who believed in heliocentrism (and, implicitly, in a spherical earth):

Yajnavalkya (aprox. 900 BC), Aryabhatta (450 AD), Bhaskara (1.100 AD) and Madhava (1.400 AD) from the Surya Yoga sect, started by none other than Akhenaton; Philolaus, Aristarchus, Herakleides and Seleucus (disciples of Pythagoras), Erathosthenes, Eudoxus, Aristotle (disciples of Plato) WERE ALL SUN WORSHIPPERS. As were Koppernigk, Kepler, Galilei, and Newton.

Here is a quote from Koppernigk:

In regard to his cosmology, Copernicus consistently appealed to the 'harmony' of his system, but it was a harmony ennobled by a sun that he personified, and, some say, deified, way beyond what we now know as its ability to convert helium into hydrogen. Copernicus writes:


In the middle of all sits Sun enthroned. In this most beautiful temple could we place this luminary in any better position from which he can illuminate the whole at once? He is rightly called the Lamp, the Mind, the Ruler of the Universe: Hermes Trismegistus names him the Visible God, Sophocles' Electra calls him the All-seeing. So the Sun sits as upon a royal throne ruling his children the planets which circle round him. The Earth has the Moon at her service. As Aristotle says, in his On Animals, the Moon has the closest relationship with the Earth. Meanwhile the Earth conceives by the Sun, and becomes pregnant with an annual rebirth (De Revolutionibus, Of the Order of the Heavenly Bodies 10).

Karl Popper shows the origin of these cultic ideas:


Copernicus studied in Bologna under the Platonist Novara; and Copernicus' idea of placing the sun rather than the earth in the center of the universe was not the result of new observations but of a new interpretation of old and well-known facts in the light of semi-religious Platonic and Neo-Platonic ideas. The crucial idea can be traced back to the sixth book of Plato's Republic, where we can read that the sun plays the same role in the realm of visible things as does the idea of the good in the realm of ideas. Now the idea of the good is the highest in the hierarchy of Platonic ideas. Accordingly the sun, which endows visible things with their visibility, vitality, growth and progress, is the highest in the hierarchy of the visible things in nature.Now if the sun was to be given pride of place, if the sun merited a divine status.then it was hardly possible for it to revolve about the earth. The only fitting place for so exalted a star was the center of the universe. So the earth was bound to revolve about the sun. This Platonic idea, then, forms the historical background of the Copernican revolution. It does not start with observations, but with a religious or mythological idea (Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, p. 187).

Popper couches his critique of Copernicus in rather polite terms, but essentially he is saying that Copernicus' brainchild had all the earmarks of originating from pagan sun-worship. As Wolfgang Smith notes:


In the Renaissance movement championed by Marsiglio Ficino, the doctrine came alive again, but in a somewhat altered form; one might say that what Ficino instituted was indeed a religion, a kind of neo-paganism. Copernicus himself was profoundly influenced by this movement, as can be clearly seen from numerous passages in the De Revolutionibus (The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology, p. 174).

Upon reading Copernicus' De Revolutionibus, one is struck by the preponderance of philosophical and humanistic arguments that he brings to his aid. As J. D. Bernal notes: '[Copernicus'] reasons for his revolutionary change were essentially philosophic and aesthetic,' and in a later edition he is more convinced that the 'reasons were mystical rather than scientific' (Science in History, 1st edition, London, Watts, 1954; 2nd edition, 1965). Overall, Copernicus presents about five-dozen arguments, at least half of which are solely philosophical in nature. Although the other half of his argumentation depends more on mechanics, these also have philosophical appendages to them (e.g., his view that the universe is infinite and therefore cannot have a center). Very few of his arguments are based on his own personal observations, since Copernicus merely reworked the observations of his Greek predecessors. In fact, Copernicus concludes that because the Greeks did not detail their cosmological models more thoroughly, history (and God) have called upon him to provide the long-awaited documentation of true cosmology.

squat, use the word idiot to describe yourself, and your mediocre belief in the round earth theory...here, you have to prove something scientifically...

I have already said quite openly that I am not a scientist. However, 15 years ago I undertook the Science Foundation Course at the UK Open University. One of the first things students were required to do was to measure the distance to the moon.

Luckily I did not put, as my answer,  "only a few kilometres".

Now, I am hanging around on this forum for a while because it has interesting moments, I have some time on my hands and it is good to stretch the old grey matter now and again. I make no claims to scientific greatness like your good self levee but I am quite well read. If you want me to even start to consider that a flat earth is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you are going the wrong way about it.

You do your colleagues on this forum no favours by posting the way you do.

Quote

There are no 149.000.000 million kilometers between the Sun and the Earth; as these photographs clearly show, right behind the ISS/Atlantis is the Sun, at just a few kilometers in the background.

Between the ISS/Atlantis and the Sun are only a few kilometers and not the 148.999.600 kilometers we have been lied to with.

That bit in bold must be the most accurate bit of data I have ever seen for the earth/sun distance.

Stunning science!

There is much more amazing revealings. Venus is only some three-four times larger than ISS
http://lakdiva.org/2004egypt/transit/venus_sun1.jpg
http://adamkapler.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/international-space-station-and-atlantis.jpg
 And Mercury is even smaller tha ISS - http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg

 That is really a "science"

and culture ever known to man throughout history

Most cultures and religions in history stated the earth was flat.  Not that it isn't a logical flaw anyways to make the arguement you are.

Levee: Thank you for postsing some content. Quite the interesting read. I'll not be recorderd in history as one of the great thinkers of 2009. I am failing to see how these observations from centuries ago have anything to do with modern observations and evidence stated in the OP. What could any of those guys said that has any bearing on modern science and observations?

Most cultures and religions in history stated the earth was flat.  Not that it isn't a logical flaw anyways to make the arguement you are.

Agreed. that is far too sweeping a statment to really support what I am trying to say. The only culture i am aware of that thought the earth is flat was dark ages cristsinity. The vast minority thought the earth to be flat. Today there are no cutlures that believe the earth to be flat beyond a few hardcore FES members and a few religeous extremists.  How can it be possible for only a tiny tiny tiny portion of the populace be right and everyone else in 2009 is wrong?

Quote from: levee on July 09, 2009, 09:54:29 AM

You are dreaming 3Tesla...I showed our friend Julian that his hypothesis is not correct; being taken by surprise, to see somebody who knows much more than himself on the subject, Julian was not able to say much more;

Actually your attempts at refuting his evidence (for trans-global radio wave propagation) were so feeble, badly thought-out and badly presented that he probably just chose to ignore them as being irrelevant (I know I did).

Edit: inserted by mistake, sorry...levee...

Please read much more carefully, since you have not done so up until now, re: no attractive gravity:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=536.0 and http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=552.0

Sorry to butt in, but how can it be that Levee is editing 3 Tesla's posts?

Please check the message I am quoting and you will see that it is 3 Tesla's but the last edit was made by Levee.

Moderators should show us all the ethics of a moderator. Instead, in this forum most moderators don't even moderate. And now this!

Maybe you had idiots in your family...you must truly be stupide to believe in a spherical earth...

Why are you behaving like a fucked-up imbecile then?

Who moderates the moderators?

If I had used this language I would have already gotten at least a reprimand. I think I remember Sokarul was banned for less than this, for a month.

I still think it is absolutely hilarious that levee is oblivious to the undeniable fact that Velilkovski's theories and FET are mutually exclusive, and continues to accept both as gospel truth!  What more conclusive proof of levee's irrationality can there be than that?

The only culture i am aware of that thought the earth is flat was dark ages cristsinity.

Actually, it's been the Church's official position that the Earth is round since the very beginning.  They borrowed most of their views on issues such as these from the ancient Greeks, particularly Aristotle.

The idea that Columbus opened everybody's eyes to the notion that the Earth is round is pure myth, invented by Washington Irving.

Quote from: Sentient Pizza on July 09, 2009, 01:12:24 PM

The only culture i am aware of that thought the earth is flat was dark ages cristsinity.

Actually, it's been the Church's official position that the Earth is round since the very beginning.  They borrowed most of their views on issues such as these from the ancient Greeks, particularly Aristotle.

The idea that Columbus opened everybody's eyes to the notion that the Earth is round is pure myth, invented by Washington Irving.

Even long before I read Chritine Garwood's excellent book, I realized that was true, which only shows me that the ancient Greeks and the Church were not wrong about everything.  None of that changes the fact that every attempt so far by FE'ers to counter Daniel C.'s and JulianMartin's arguments have only succeeded in further demonstrating the inherent weakness and irrationality of the FET hypothesis and those who cling to it.  

Besides, though it may be true that the Church's official position has long been that the earth is spherical, I am not nearly so sure that the majority of the laity in medieval times, especially Illiterate peasants, were aware of or held that view.

The True Size/Orbit of the Sun (Sun/Mercury-ISS transits):

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=830.0

 Couple days ago you asked to come to you with specific points about "your astrophysics". How about this true size of the Sun? With your pictures you claim that ISS, Venus and Mercury are roughly in same distance from earth, Venus is about four times larger than ISS and Mercury is smaller that ISS
http://lakdiva.org/2004egypt/transit/venus_sun1.jpg
http://adamkapler.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/international-space-station-and-atlantis.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg
 Care to explain a little more about "your astrophysics" and how did you measure the sizes and distances? Or I guess I can predict the answer - visual observation of pictures which were taken by other people.

Daniel, you should study astrophysics much more...you are just quoting ACCEPTED hypotheses, which have no proof behind them...

Just because you say so, doesn't make it true. To the best of my knowledge, everything that I've quoted, and more, has been experimentally verified. I have quoted no hypothesis. I never knowingly quote a hypothesis. I only quote theory. A theory is a hypothesis that has undergone rigorous experimental verification over a period of time, has explained phenomena that previously gone unexplained, and predicted new phenomena that was later observed. A theory is the highest point that a model can reach in the world of science.

Your comments about my background are bordering on ad hominem. Please don't do that. My background is fairly good, but in any case, it is not the subject of discussion since I never said "I am an astrophysicist, therefore you should just take my word as fact". Thank you.

Faint young sun paradox + Impossibility of a spherical shaped Sun:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg718434#msg718434

How do you figure that the sun has a much lower pressure than predicted by General Relativity?

The correct Flat Earth Sun theory (not the 32 mile diameter, 3000 miles orbit quoted in the FAQ, which is completely wrong, as is the travelling FE at the speed of light):

If 32 mile diameter / 3000 mile distance is wrong, why is it in the FAQ? First there was disagreement as to why the atmosphere stay sin place, and now there is disagreement as to what the sun is like. It is odd and frustrating that there doesn't seem to be an agreement on exactly what the FE model actually is. Every time the model is shown to conflict with observation someone dreams up of something else. To be taken seriously, the FE group has to get its act together and actually agree on what their model is.

It is not reasonable that the mainstream scientist be asked to disprove multiple, constantly mutating, mutually contradictory models. You have to provide a single consistent model to present as an alternative. Otherwise you have no hope of doing science.

I scanned the first few posts you linked to and I saw no discernable model there. The first three talk about ancient mythology. The fourth is itself a set of links, with another reference to ancient texts. The next one is a collection of youtube videos. I don't see how those videos are supposed to prove anything. The video says it shows the ISS crossing the sun, what's wrong with that? How do you figure that crossing the sun means that the sun is about 1 km behind the ISS? Btw, I thought the FE model said that there are no satellites. Has there been another change in the FE model?

Tell you what. If you summarize your views on the FE sun and how it works, I will try to respond to it. But since you are asking me to keep multiple models in mind in the discussion, I think it is fair that I ask you to clearly and concisely explain your model, rather than have me read multiple forum posts scattered around this site.


The next link talks about the big bang theory. Following the numbers on that post, perhaps I can shed some light:

(1) The big bang theory in its present form does not claim to explain the origin of the gas in the universe. This is not a flaw. It just means that we don't have complete knowledge of the universe. What else is new? We would like to one day know the answer to this question, but there are a few things that we need to do before we can even try that (we need to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity before we can probe further into the big bang).

(2) The formation of galaxies is the most natural thing in the world. In a universe that is not 100% isotropic and homogeneous, there will be regions that will have a small, non-zero angular momentum, as well as there are regions slightly denser than the others. As gravity makes the slightly denser regions coalesce, the existent angular momentum causes the rotational speed to accelerate, as dictated by the law of conservation of angular momentum, similar to how a figure skater accelerates her rotation when she pulls her arms inwards. The combination of a gravitational field pointing to the centre of mass, with the centripetal acceleration associated with the angular motion will tend to push matter into a disk shape (this can be easily explained to a first year student that knows the basics of vector addition).

(3) This is not true. The birth of stars is currently being observed. We can see examples of stars at all ages, from a nebula, to early proto-stars, to the youngest stars, and so on.

(4) Explosions are not needed to make stars. The author of this post seems confused. Supernova explosions are responsible for heavy elements, but stars need not have heavy elements, and stars that do contain heavy elements need not be on a one-to-one ratio with supernova explosions (why should they be?).

(5) Present theories on star formation do not require that near-vacuum gas be formed into a ball. The spherical shape of a star comes from the hydrostatic pressures inside the star at a stage that is most definitely not a vacuum. That said, because gravity is spherically symmetrical, it does tend to grab a more or less round blob of gas. But AFAIK this fact is not important for the roundness of a star.

I don't know Philip E. Seiden, but he might be mis-quoted or confused. The homogeneity of the universe is a convenient assumption to make the big bang model mathematically easier. That is all. Mapping of the cosmic microwave background reveals that a moment after the big bang the universe was not actually perfectly homogeneous and isotropic. The deviations are really really tiny, but they are detectable.

(6) This would only be true if the surrounding gas around the supernova was perfectly spherically symmetric, which is obviously not true.

(7) Answer: very slowly. But the material emanating from a supernova will eventually cross a 10 light-year gap, and the gravitational influence of the gas will be felt from very early on. After all, changes in the gravitational field (e.g. after an explosion) propagate at the speed of light.

( This is, at best, a misunderstanding of the nature of astrophysics, along with old information. Astronomy is a science that has very large margins of error. In particular, we have large errors in our measurements of distance, which in turn affect our estimates of everything else. The greater the scale, the larger the error. At the level of the entire universe, the margin of error is indeed very large. At the level of local stars, the errors are more modest. Several years ago we had the problem that our best estimates of the age of some nearby stars, and the age of the universe, seemed to indicate that those stars were older than the universe. Because the first measurement has only a modest margin of error, and the latter has a very large margin of error, there was no doubt as to which of the two estimates was wrong. Since then, improvements in telescopes technology have allowed us to more accurately measure distances, and the new results have corrected the age of the universe to something compatible with the age of the oldest stars we can see.

(9) Without trying to either confirm nor deny this, I don't see how this observation is a problem for the big bang theory.

(10) Uhm... no. This is like saying that because all humans are formed the same way, all humans should look the same. According to present theory stars should differ in mass, metallicity (quantity of heavy elements) and age, and that alone will cause a lot of variations.

(11) The order is not so delicate, and I don't know what the poster means by detailed. In any case, gravity will naturally produce the fractal-like organization that this point refers to. Density variations in the universe tend to cause large regions of gas to come closer together. Density variations inside those will in turn coalesce together, and so on and so forth. This leads to the structure of super clusters, clusters, galaxies, and solar systems. This is actually quite straight forward. Unless you believe in a perfectly homogeneous and isotropic universe, slight variations in density should clump together, forming the fractal-like pattern we see. What else would you expect?

[note: here the numbering in the post skips from 11 to 13].

(13) The issues behind the neutrinos is more complex than the author seems to realize. You need to understand some quantum mechanics to be able to talk intelligently about this topic. Furthermore, the commentary on this post is 8 years out of date. I'll try to explain:  For many years there was a discrepancy in the number of neutrinos detected on earth (we were indeed detecting too few). The discrepancy was resolved 7 years ago, requiring a correction to the standard model, giving mass to neutrinos (the question of whether neutrinos had mass was one of the big open questions at the time). This allows neutrinos to change flavour, into flavours that are not detected with current instruments. Please google for "solar neutrino problem" to learn more about this subject.

Superstring pipe dream:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=551.msg24650#msg24650

I won't bother with this one. Superstring theory can't really explain anything right now and it does not form part of any of the theories we have been discussing here.

So you see Daniel...you have not studied this subject as you should have...

That is too close to an ad hominem. In any case, what I have seen from the links so far seems to be full of misunderstandings (about neutrinos, gravity, basic physics, the big bang, etc) or  irrelevant commentary (who cares about superstrings or about mythology?).

You want more?

I would appreciate a consistent FE model that I can examine and discuss.

PS Daniel, you will never see light bending used as an explanation in my messages...

That is nice, but it does re-affirm the issue: What exactly IS the FE model? It looks like every FE poster has a different idea of what the FE model actually is. When I joined this forum, the FAQ gave me the impression that there actually was a generally agreed-upon model that could be discussed. But now it seems like every poster has his own pet hypothesis and at times they seem to struggle to explain what their hypothesis actually says (your earlier post, in particular). It is not reasonable to expect a mainstream scientist to reply to multiple, fuzzy, poorly defined, constantly fluctuating hypotheses.

I would appreciate a consistent FE model that I can examine and discuss.

Wouldn't we all.

i am going to lock this thread for the moment, as it has degenerated into a trade of petty insults along with some other questionable behaviour.