FET theory is pretentious.

Redshift may be one of two things: the acceleration of galaxies moving away from us, or gravitational attraction of matter. If it is the first, then we're witnessing these galaxies moving away from us wherever we look. This indicates a central position.  The idea of dark matter was proposed to solve this inconvenience to the Copernican Principle; essentially, it is stated that this unknown, unknowable, and indetectible force is causing the expansion of space in such a way that every galaxy is accelerating away from every other galaxy.  However, this is simply an hypothesis that was postulated precisely to eliminate this rather un-Copernican dilemma, and is an example of scientists adding unneeded complexity to maintain their own preconceived notions. So much for objectivity based on evidence. If we remove the Copernican Principle and admit the possibility that we may be in a privileged position, there is no longer any need for that mysterious dark matter, and we can take the acceleration of galaxies away from us at face value.  
If redshift is due to gravitational attraction, then this would demonstrate that the majority of universal matter is surrounding us in such a way that we're situated in a relatively empty void. A privileged position, in other words.

Red shift has no need for dark matter to explain it. Your getting your facts wrong. Red shift is part of the evidence for the Big Bang, and that is backed up by the microwave background radiation. Dark matter was invented to account for inconsistencies between what is observed in the rotation of galaxies and what theories predicted for their estimated mass. Completely different. Dark matter and dark energy, if they exist, will affect the expansion rate and hence the red shift, but its not the cause of it.
The alternative theory that explains the mass discrepancy without dark matter is a form of variable gravity theory. Personally I prefer this because its less clunky and doesnt rely on some particles which seem to influence everything except scientists instruments.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2010, 04:52:14 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 07, 2010, 02:51:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 07, 2010, 01:42:46 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 07, 2010, 12:35:00 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on April 07, 2010, 12:27:22 PM

Why is thinking that we aren't special pretensions?  By assuming we're not special we put ourselves in with everything else, making us insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe.  We can then learn about how we work and apply that to the rest of the universe and see if it fits.  If it does, then we're not special and simply part of the universe.  If it doesn't, then we figure out why.

Thinking that the earth is special is very pretentious.  Granted, earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life.  But, then again, how much of the universe have we actually explored?

You assume that there is a universe to explore.

The FE doesn't exist within a universe?    

As the planets are relatively small, and the stars are nothing more than points of light, I wouldn't say that there's much to explore.

How can you know for sure that there isn't much to explore unless you try?

I read Earth Not a Globe.

I read Earth Not a Globe.

That's about the only book you have read, right?


Nice to see you ignore the rest of the entire library.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2010, 07:54:53 PM

I read Earth Not a Globe.

That's about the only book you have read, right?


Nice to see you ignore the rest of the entire library.

I don't think he can quote anything else without being wrong.

I read Earth Not a Globe.

I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.  What's your point?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2010, 07:54:53 PM

I read Earth Not a Globe.

I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.  What's your point?

"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is Fiction. "Earth Not a Globe" is Non-Fiction.

Quote from: markjo on April 08, 2010, 08:26:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2010, 07:54:53 PM

I read Earth Not a Globe.

I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.  What's your point?

"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is Fiction. "Earth Not a Globe" is Non-Fiction.

That hardly makes someting worthy of study or being regard as true. I read Mein Kampf.... I'm not going to go kill Jews though. Why? Because its utter bollocks - just like your precious book.... which is, funny enough, registered under "Occult" on  Amazon.com.

Quote from: markjo on April 08, 2010, 08:26:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2010, 07:54:53 PM

I read Earth Not a Globe.

I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.  What's your point?

"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is Fiction. "Earth Not a Globe" is Non-Fiction.

Fixed.

Quote from: markjo on April 08, 2010, 08:26:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2010, 07:54:53 PM

I read Earth Not a Globe.

I read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.  What's your point?

"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is Fiction. "Earth Not a Globe" is Non-Fiction.

Many would disagree on both points. Are all those who put faith in HGttG idiots? And are all those who believe in ENaG genius? Your posts would cause many to disagree.

I love how Tom questions are scientific development by demanding empirical proof from EVERY person that bleives in them and trie to make a point about not believing in ANYTING without emperical evidence as all of the scientistific communtiy is stupid or corrupt and then is a blatant and idiotic show of massive hypocrisy just blindly bases all his claims on ENAG, so the guy who wrote it isn't corrupt but Newton and Hawking was/is.

Just because ENaG is supposed to be non-fiction, that doesn't mean that it's correct.

Just because ENaG is supposed to be non-fiction, that doesn't mean that it's correct.

By plane trigonometry, in special connection with carefully measured base lines, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has demonstrated and placed beyond all power of doubt that the sun, moon, stars, and galaxies are all within a distance of a few thousand miles from the surface of the earth. Therefore they are very small objects. Therefore not worlds. Therefore not light years across or from each other.

Quote from: markjo on April 09, 2010, 06:24:49 AM

Just because ENaG is supposed to be non-fiction, that doesn't mean that it's correct.

By plane trigonometry, in special connection with carefully measured base lines, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has demonstrated and placed beyond all power of doubt that the sun, moon, stars, and galaxies are all within a distance of a few thousand miles from the surface of the earth. Therefore they are very small objects. Therefore not worlds. Therefore not light years across or from each other.

No he hasn't. He assumed the shape of the earth for his measurements. They would be markedly different if he had assumed a RE.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2010, 05:06:12 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 09, 2010, 06:24:49 AM

Just because ENaG is supposed to be non-fiction, that doesn't mean that it's correct.

By plane trigonometry, in special connection with carefully measured base lines, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has demonstrated and placed beyond all power of doubt that the sun, moon, stars, and galaxies are all within a distance of a few thousand miles from the surface of the earth. Therefore they are very small objects. Therefore not worlds. Therefore not light years across or from each other.

No he hasn't. He assumed the shape of the earth for his measurements. They would be markedly different if he had assumed a RE.

The shape of the earth is proven flat in the first few chapters of Earth Not a Globe.

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 09, 2010, 05:08:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2010, 05:06:12 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 09, 2010, 06:24:49 AM

Just because ENaG is supposed to be non-fiction, that doesn't mean that it's correct.

By plane trigonometry, in special connection with carefully measured base lines, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has demonstrated and placed beyond all power of doubt that the sun, moon, stars, and galaxies are all within a distance of a few thousand miles from the surface of the earth. Therefore they are very small objects. Therefore not worlds. Therefore not light years across or from each other.

No he hasn't. He assumed the shape of the earth for his measurements. They would be markedly different if he had assumed a RE.

The shape of the earth is proven flat in the first few chapters of Earth Not a Globe.

By lying about ship observations with broken telescopes? Oh, my bad, sorry go ahead.

By lying about ship observations with broken telescopes? Oh, my bad, sorry go ahead.

Ship observations aren't mentioned within the first few chapters. The first few chapters are on the convexity experiments which demonstrates that the earth's surface is not curved as popularly assumed.

Quote from: markjo on April 09, 2010, 06:24:49 AM

Just because ENaG is supposed to be non-fiction, that doesn't mean that it's correct.

By plane trigonometry, in special connection with carefully measured base lines, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has demonstrated and placed beyond all power of doubt that the sun, moon, stars, and galaxies are all within a distance of a few thousand miles from the surface of the earth. Therefore they are very small objects. Therefore not worlds. Therefore not light years across or from each other.

You know, I'm no expert but...

Wouldn't an object that's really small but close up look the same and give the same results as a very very large object very far away?
Something about relative size.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2010, 05:06:12 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 09, 2010, 06:24:49 AM

Just because ENaG is supposed to be non-fiction, that doesn't mean that it's correct.

By plane trigonometry, in special connection with carefully measured base lines, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has demonstrated and placed beyond all power of doubt that the sun, moon, stars, and galaxies are all within a distance of a few thousand miles from the surface of the earth. Therefore they are very small objects. Therefore not worlds. Therefore not light years across or from each other.

You know, I'm no expert but...

Wouldn't an object that's really small but close up look the same and give the same results as a very very large object very far away?
Something about relative size.

Something about astronomical parallax on a plane.

Read more Earth Not a Globe.

Quote from: Lorddave on April 09, 2010, 05:13:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2010, 05:06:12 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 09, 2010, 06:24:49 AM

Just because ENaG is supposed to be non-fiction, that doesn't mean that it's correct.

By plane trigonometry, in special connection with carefully measured base lines, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has demonstrated and placed beyond all power of doubt that the sun, moon, stars, and galaxies are all within a distance of a few thousand miles from the surface of the earth. Therefore they are very small objects. Therefore not worlds. Therefore not light years across or from each other.

You know, I'm no expert but...

Wouldn't an object that's really small but close up look the same and give the same results as a very very large object very far away?
Something about relative size.

Something about astronomical parallax on a plane.

Read more Earth Not a Globe.

Yeah...
I'm reading up on Parallax.  It's used to show objects moving in relation to other objects.  So for example, an object closer to you moves across your frame of reference faster than an object farther away.  My by measuring the difference in apparent speed between those two objects we can calculate it's distance.


It probably helps that I prefer to learn about parallax than have a philosopher tell me about it in a book he wrote.

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 09, 2010, 05:09:41 PM

By lying about ship observations with broken telescopes? Oh, my bad, sorry go ahead.

Ship observations aren't mentioned within the first few chapters. The first few chapters are on the convexity experiments which demonstrates that the earth's surface is not curved as popularly assumed.

Yes, experiments that can be explained by atmospheric refractive phenomena.  Experiments that have been recreated with mixed results.  Experiments that have not been properly scientifically documented.

Red shift has no need for dark matter to explain it. Your getting your facts wrong. Red shift is part of the evidence for the Big Bang, and that is backed up by the microwave background radiation. Dark matter was invented to account for inconsistencies between what is observed in the rotation of galaxies and what theories predicted for their estimated mass. Completely different. Dark matter and dark energy, if they exist, will affect the expansion rate and hence the red shift, but its not the cause of it.
The alternative theory that explains the mass discrepancy without dark matter is a form of variable gravity theory. Personally I prefer this because its less clunky and doesnt rely on some particles which seem to influence everything except scientists instruments.

It seems to me that the observation the acceleration of all other galaxies away from us posed a bit of a problem, in that it would point to our being in a privileged position. It was thus explained that this acceleration would be observed on any other galaxy, as well.  Thus, galaxies were not accelerating away from a central point, of which we were either in or very close to; rather, they were accelerating away from every other galaxy due to the expansion of space itself. This force of spatial expansion was posited as an unseen and unobservable force, termed dark energy.  The problem is that this was nothing more than a pure assumption, not grounded in observation or in collected data. It was required to maintain the preconceived notions of Copernicanism, thus adding complexity into what would otherwise be a very simple conclusion: a dethronement of acentrism.

Not to mention other problems for the Copernican establishment, such as the quasar distribution problem in which observable quasars formed 57 concentric shells around our position.  That's what happens when people let their personal philosophy cloud their reason: they accept all manner of false abstractions and deny their own commonsense experience.

Luckily, certain scientists are now questioning the dogmas of the establishment and are arriving at the same conclusion: perhaps the Copernican principle is irrational.  For instance, these scientists questioning the need for dark energy and our privileged position: http://www.physorg.com/news141617439.html

Quote from: Skeleton on April 08, 2010, 07:54:42 PM

Red shift has no need for dark matter to explain it. Your getting your facts wrong. Red shift is part of the evidence for the Big Bang, and that is backed up by the microwave background radiation. Dark matter was invented to account for inconsistencies between what is observed in the rotation of galaxies and what theories predicted for their estimated mass. Completely different. Dark matter and dark energy, if they exist, will affect the expansion rate and hence the red shift, but its not the cause of it.
The alternative theory that explains the mass discrepancy without dark matter is a form of variable gravity theory. Personally I prefer this because its less clunky and doesnt rely on some particles which seem to influence everything except scientists instruments.

It seems to me that the observation the acceleration of all other galaxies away from us posed a bit of a problem, in that it would point to our being in a privileged position. It was thus explained that this acceleration would be observed on any other galaxy, as well.  Thus, galaxies were not accelerating away from a central point, of which we were either in or very close to; rather, they were accelerating away from every other galaxy due to the expansion of space itself. This force of spatial expansion was posited as an unseen and unobservable force, termed dark energy.  The problem is that this was nothing more than a pure assumption, not grounded in observation or in collected data. It was required to maintain the preconceived notions of Copernicanism, thus adding complexity into what would otherwise be a very simple conclusion: a dethronement of acentrism.

Not to mention other problems for the Copernican establishment, such as the quasar distribution problem in which observable quasars formed 57 concentric shells around our position.  That's what happens when people let their personal philosophy cloud their reason: they accept all manner of false abstractions and deny their own commonsense experience.

Luckily, certain scientists are now questioning the dogmas of the establishment and are arriving at the same conclusion: perhaps the Copernican principle is irrational.  For instance, these scientists questioning the need for dark energy and our privileged position: http://www.physorg.com/news141617439.html

My understanding is that everything is moving away from everything else and not away from a specific point.  I also understand that it's moving faster than the speed of light.  The only way that could happen is if space was expanding instead of the physical matter moving.

That's what happens when people let their personal philosophy cloud their reason: they accept all manner of false abstractions and deny their own commonsense experience.

Just wanna quote this because when I read the FAQ and Wiki, this is what I think.

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 09, 2010, 05:09:41 PM

By lying about ship observations with broken telescopes? Oh, my bad, sorry go ahead.

Ship observations aren't mentioned within the first few chapters. The first few chapters are on the convexity experiments which demonstrates that the earth's surface is not curved as popularly assumed.

I was reading those chapters and my first thought was "wouldn't you get a different result assuming bendy light was true?"

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2010, 05:12:02 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 09, 2010, 05:09:41 PM

By lying about ship observations with broken telescopes? Oh, my bad, sorry go ahead.

Ship observations aren't mentioned within the first few chapters. The first few chapters are on the convexity experiments which demonstrates that the earth's surface is not curved as popularly assumed.

I was reading those chapters and my first thought was "wouldn't you get a different result assuming bendy light was true?"

ENAG says that light travels in straight lines.

Quote from: 004forever on April 10, 2010, 12:23:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2010, 05:12:02 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 09, 2010, 05:09:41 PM

By lying about ship observations with broken telescopes? Oh, my bad, sorry go ahead.

Ship observations aren't mentioned within the first few chapters. The first few chapters are on the convexity experiments which demonstrates that the earth's surface is not curved as popularly assumed.

I was reading those chapters and my first thought was "wouldn't you get a different result assuming bendy light was true?"

ENAG says that light travels in straight lines.

Where is your data?

Quote from: 004forever on April 10, 2010, 12:23:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2010, 05:12:02 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 09, 2010, 05:09:41 PM

By lying about ship observations with broken telescopes? Oh, my bad, sorry go ahead.

Ship observations aren't mentioned within the first few chapters. The first few chapters are on the convexity experiments which demonstrates that the earth's surface is not curved as popularly assumed.

I was reading those chapters and my first thought was "wouldn't you get a different result assuming bendy light was true?"

ENAG says that light travels in straight lines.

Isn't that in direct contradiction with the EA?

As quoted from the FAQ..

EA: Electromagnetic Acceleration, a theory which states that light bends, creating an optical illusion to the observer. (general model)

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2010, 01:55:55 PM

Quote from: 004forever on April 10, 2010, 12:23:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2010, 05:12:02 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 09, 2010, 05:09:41 PM

By lying about ship observations with broken telescopes? Oh, my bad, sorry go ahead.

Ship observations aren't mentioned within the first few chapters. The first few chapters are on the convexity experiments which demonstrates that the earth's surface is not curved as popularly assumed.

I was reading those chapters and my first thought was "wouldn't you get a different result assuming bendy light was true?"

ENAG says that light travels in straight lines.

Isn't that in direct contradiction with the EA?

As quoted from the FAQ..

Quote

EA: Electromagnetic Acceleration, a theory which states that light bends, creating an optical illusion to the observer. (general model)

EA isn't part of the classic model.

Isn't EA or bendy light required to explain why there is a horizon in FET?

Isn't EA or bendy light required to explain why there is a horizon in FET?

No.  EA/bendy light is required to explain why the flat earth looks round (sunken ship observations, etc.).

Quote from: 004forever on April 10, 2010, 05:07:17 PM

Isn't EA or bendy light required to explain why there is a horizon in FET?

No.  EA/bendy light is required to explain why the flat earth looks round (sunken ship observations, etc.).

Actually, it isn't.

Read Earth Not a Globe.