The Lie Theory

id bet money your on a windows or mac box

You'd lose that money.

and every ones UELA is the same Apple MS Google Mozilla

My browser does not require acceptance of a EULA.

you have Live account i see same EULA as IE you just dont like being wrong

Quote from: trig on May 14, 2010, 12:41:10 AM

The sun rises at a declination of 90 degrees and sets at a declination of 270 degrees during the Equinox in every part of Earth except close to the poles. Whats more, the sun rises at the same declination in every location of Earth except close to where the sunlight lasts almost all day or almost none of the day, any day of the year.

Please provide some evidence for this.

There are several threads with this. As they say here, lurk moar. You have been reminded to go out and check this simple fact on a day close to the Equinox and you have neglected to do so. There have been several diagrams posted so you can understand the explanation, something you have not been able to produce for your "theories". You do not have to wait for someone to give evidence that you will dismiss, you can go out yourself and get the evidence but neglect to do so because you know you will not like the result.

you have Live account i see same EULA as IE you just dont like being wrong

I don't use any software that requires acceptance of a EULA. I connect to the Windows Live protocol using third party software.

There are several threads with this. As they say here, lurk moar. You have been reminded to go out and check this simple fact on a day close to the Equinox and you have neglected to do so. There have been several diagrams posted so you can understand the explanation, something you have not been able to produce for your "theories". You do not have to wait for someone to give evidence that you will dismiss, you can go out yourself and get the evidence but neglect to do so because you know you will not like the result.

I cannot verify your claim for myself, because I can only exist in one place at a time.

Quote from: Parsifal on May 14, 2010, 12:48:39 AM

Quote from: trig on May 14, 2010, 12:41:10 AM

The sun rises at a declination of 90 degrees and sets at a declination of 270 degrees during the Equinox in every part of Earth except close to the poles. Whats more, the sun rises at the same declination in every location of Earth except close to where the sunlight lasts almost all day or almost none of the day, any day of the year.

Please provide some evidence for this.

There are several threads with this. As they say here, lurk moar. You have been reminded to go out and check this simple fact on a day close to the Equinox and you have neglected to do so. There have been several diagrams posted so you can understand the explanation, something you have not been able to produce for your "theories". You do not have to wait for someone to give evidence that you will dismiss, you can go out yourself and get the evidence but neglect to do so because you know you will not like the result.

this^
this is science make prediction test log out come LIKE IT OR NOT
if your prediction was wrong then go back to step one till it works
l2 scientific method  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

this^
this is science make prediction test log out come LIKE IT OR NOT
if your prediction was wrong then go back to step one till it works
l2 scientific method  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

What is being discussed in this thread is the OP's implication that REers have proof for their claims. I would like some of this proof to be presented; whether or not FET can be validated is irrelevant here.

ah but thats the rub tons of proof has been given that has been tested over and over with the same out come
and it makes predictions good ones too
what you want is us to prove its NOT flat and you can not prove a negative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

II. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.

Another common mistake arises from the failure to estimate quantitatively systematic errors (and all errors). There are many examples of discoveries which were missed by experimenters whose data contained a new phenomenon, but who explained it away as a systematic background. Conversely, there are many examples of alleged "new discoveries" which later proved to be due to systematic errors not accounted for by the "discoverers."

In a field where there is active experimentation and open communication among members of the scientific community, the biases of individuals or groups may cancel out, because experimental tests are repeated by different scientists who may have different biases. In addition, different types of experimental setups have different sources of systematic errors. Over a period spanning a variety of experimental tests (usually at least several years), a consensus develops in the community as to which experimental results have stood the test of time.

ah but thats the rub tons of proof has been given that has been tested over and over with the same out come
and it makes predictions good ones too
what you want is us to prove its NOT flat and you can not prove a negative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

No, all I want is proof of a single feature unique to RET. This shouldn't be so difficult if you're so sure it exists, yet in the two pages since I have made that challenge none has been provided.

easy jet streams
you can not have jet streams with out a rotating sphere
and easy to test He balloon + some data recorders
you can make a prediction and most models are damn good too and get a area of were it will go and land
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream

Jet streams are caused by a combination of a planet's rotation  on its axis and atmospheric heating (by solar radiation and, on some planets other than Earth, internal heat). The Coriolis effect describes how a planet's surface and atmosphere rotate fastest relative to each other at the planet's equator while virtually not rotating at all at the poles.

this just doesnt work on a flat plan

you can not have jet streams with out a rotating sphere

In that case, the existence of jet streams disproves RET.

Quote from: Space Tourist on May 14, 2010, 01:24:44 AM

you can not have jet streams with out a rotating sphere

In that case, the existence of jet streams disproves RET.

yea your a troll or have 0 reading comprehension
let me state it like this....
IF the Earth is a sphere then it must rotate for day and night as it orbits the sun(this can be tested for as well)
There for we have jet streams

IF i fly a balloon very high i can use models based on the guess that the earth rotates creating a jet stream and predict were it will and and land
and it turns out you can do that and its true
there for we have jet streams the can be predicted and the predictions of them are based on the planet rotating on its axis 

Quote from: Space Tourist on May 14, 2010, 01:08:53 AM

you have Live account i see same EULA as IE you just dont like being wrong

I don't use any software that requires acceptance of a EULA. I connect to the Windows Live protocol using third party software.

Quote from: trig on May 14, 2010, 01:09:05 AM

There are several threads with this. As they say here, lurk moar. You have been reminded to go out and check this simple fact on a day close to the Equinox and you have neglected to do so. There have been several diagrams posted so you can understand the explanation, something you have not been able to produce for your "theories". You do not have to wait for someone to give evidence that you will dismiss, you can go out yourself and get the evidence but neglect to do so because you know you will not like the result.

I cannot verify your claim for myself, because I can only exist in one place at a time.

The whole EULA discussion is trolling at its worst. You are ranting on the subject for as long as others tolerate you, and then you will say that all photos, and by extension, videos, are suspect anyway. While we are in that subject, you still have not told us where did you get the photo of Jupiter taken from a space probe.

There are two Equinoxes every year, and you can do this measurement quite accurately for more than a week before or after the Equinox, so you have plenty opportunities to make your measurements for yourself from several locations. Have you noticed nobody has asked where you live? Everyone is confident that wherever you live, if you make your measurements carefully and honestly the result will be the expected one, because it will be so from every place except close to the poles. And you probably have reliable friends, anyway, so the " I can only exist in one place at a time" rant is moot.

The evidence of the sun rising from the East on the Equinox is derived from the navigational charts that have been in use since more than 400 years ago, so thousands or millions or navigators have had the opportunity to denounce any lie, and have not done so. Therefore what we really would like is to have you, personally, check the result, so you cannot blame anyone else.

yea your a troll or have 0 reading comprehension
let me state it like this....
IF the Earth is a sphere then it must rotate for day and night as it orbits the sun(this can be tested for as well)
There for we have jet streams

IF i fly a balloon very high i can use models based on the guess that the earth rotates creating a jet stream and predict were it will and and land
and it turns out you can do that and its true
there for we have jet streams the can be predicted and the predictions of them are based on the planet rotating on its axis 

RET doesn't hold that the Earth is a sphere, so such predictions aren't applicable to RET.

There are two Equinoxes every year, and you can do this measurement quite accurately for more than a week before or after the Equinox, so you have plenty opportunities to make your measurements for yourself from several locations. Have you noticed nobody has asked where you live? Everyone is confident that wherever you live, if you make your measurements carefully and honestly the result will be the expected one, because it will be so from every place except close to the poles. And you probably have reliable friends, anyway, so the " I can only exist in one place at a time" rant is moot.

The evidence of the sun rising from the East on the Equinox is derived from the navigational charts that have been in use since more than 400 years ago, so thousands or millions or navigators have had the opportunity to denounce any lie, and have not done so. Therefore what we really would like is to have you, personally, check the result, so you cannot blame anyone else.

All that making multiple measurements would prove is that on any one particular day, the length of a day in one particular location lasts for a particular length of time. It wouldn't prove anything about that location on other days, or other locations on that same day. Also, I don't have friends, let alone reliable ones.

Quote from: Space Tourist on May 14, 2010, 01:41:12 AM

yea your a troll or have 0 reading comprehension
let me state it like this....
IF the Earth is a sphere then it must rotate for day and night as it orbits the sun(this can be tested for as well)
There for we have jet streams

IF i fly a balloon very high i can use models based on the guess that the earth rotates creating a jet stream and predict were it will and and land
and it turns out you can do that and its true
there for we have jet streams the can be predicted and the predictions of them are based on the planet rotating on its axis 

RET doesn't hold that the Earth is a sphere, so such predictions aren't applicable to RET.

Quote from: trig on May 14, 2010, 01:44:05 AM

There are two Equinoxes every year, and you can do this measurement quite accurately for more than a week before or after the Equinox, so you have plenty opportunities to make your measurements for yourself from several locations. Have you noticed nobody has asked where you live? Everyone is confident that wherever you live, if you make your measurements carefully and honestly the result will be the expected one, because it will be so from every place except close to the poles. And you probably have reliable friends, anyway, so the " I can only exist in one place at a time" rant is moot.

The evidence of the sun rising from the East on the Equinox is derived from the navigational charts that have been in use since more than 400 years ago, so thousands or millions or navigators have had the opportunity to denounce any lie, and have not done so. Therefore what we really would like is to have you, personally, check the result, so you cannot blame anyone else.

All that making multiple measurements would prove is that on any one particular day, the length of a day in one particular location lasts for a particular length of time. It wouldn't prove anything about that location on other days, or other locations on that same day. Also, I don't have friends, let alone reliable ones.

lolwut? then what its a pineapple?
its a sphere or close to it close enough when you model jetstreams based on it being a sphere it works out very very well

lolwut? then what its a pineapple?
its a sphere or close to it close enough when you model jetstreams based on it being a sphere it works out very very well

A sphere doesn't bulge outward perpendicular to one axis.

Quote from: Space Tourist on May 14, 2010, 02:08:51 AM

lolwut? then what its a pineapple?
its a sphere or close to it close enough when you model jetstreams based on it being a sphere it works out very very well

A sphere doesn't bulge outward perpendicular to one axis.

semantics
and not relevant for a simple prediction and i know its not a true sphere
even with in that parts of the upper atmosphere have highs and lows
but for the mathmatical modeling of a the jet stream on a basic level an sphere works just fine
http://weather.uwyo.edu/polar/balloon_traj.html
here you can test it your self im sure you could get some people to send you money to try it 

but for the mathmatical modeling of a the jet stream on a basic level an sphere works just fine

Then you have provided evidence for the Earth being a sphere, and not for the Earth being an oblate spheroid.

Quote from: Space Tourist on May 14, 2010, 02:14:37 AM

but for the mathmatical modeling of a the jet stream on a basic level an sphere works just fine

Then you have provided evidence for the Earth being a sphere, and not for the Earth being an oblate spheroid.

then i win becouse ether way ITS NOT FLAT
GOOD DAY SIR!

oh and you can model it ether way using an oblate spheroid just makes the predictions slightly better but for predictions not at the equator it makes little difference

Quote from: Parsifal on May 14, 2010, 02:21:28 AM

Quote from: Space Tourist on May 14, 2010, 02:14:37 AM

but for the mathmatical modeling of a the jet stream on a basic level an sphere works just fine

Then you have provided evidence for the Earth being a sphere, and not for the Earth being an oblate spheroid.

then i win becouse ether way ITS NOT FLAT
GOOD DAY SIR!

Not even the most degenerate round-earth believer says the the earth is a perfect sphere.  You presented 'evidence' to say just that.

then i win becouse ether way ITS NOT FLAT
GOOD DAY SIR!

No you don't. I asked for evidence of a feature unique to RET, which you have not provided.

Quote from: Space Tourist on May 14, 2010, 02:24:10 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on May 14, 2010, 02:21:28 AM

Quote from: Space Tourist on May 14, 2010, 02:14:37 AM

but for the mathmatical modeling of a the jet stream on a basic level an sphere works just fine

Then you have provided evidence for the Earth being a sphere, and not for the Earth being an oblate spheroid.

then i win becouse ether way ITS NOT FLAT
GOOD DAY SIR!

Not even the most degenerate round-earth believer says the the earth is a perfect sphere.  You presented 'evidence' to say just that.

you missed the point for a BASIC MATHEMATICAL MODEL it doesnt have to be perfect close will do
an you can do it ether way using a proper oblate spheroid just ups the accuracy a bit mostly for latitudes close to 0  

Quote from: Space Tourist on May 14, 2010, 02:24:10 AM

then i win becouse ether way ITS NOT FLAT
GOOD DAY SIR!

No you don't. I asked for evidence of a feature unique to RET, which you have not provided.

again semantics

fine what ever you can do the same test with the SAME data sets just youll have smaller landing zone the find
i was trying to simplify things but if you REALLY want the long ver  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream

Jet streams are fast flowing, narrow air currents found in the atmospheres of some planets. The main jet streams are located near the tropopause, the transition between the troposphere  (where temperature decreases with height) and the stratosphere  (where temperature increases with height).[1]  The major jet streams on Earth are westerly winds (flowing west to east). Their paths typically have a meandering  shape; jet streams may start, stop, split into two or more parts, combine into one stream, or flow in various directions including the opposite direction of most of the jet. The strongest jet streams are the polar jets, at around 7–12 km (23,000–39,000 ft) above sea level, and the higher and somewhat weaker subtropical jets at around 10–16 km (33,000–52,000 ft). The northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere each have both a polar jet and a subtropical jet. The northern hemisphere polar jet flows over the middle to northern latitudes of North America, Europe, and Asia and their intervening oceans, while the southern hemisphere polar jet mostly circles Antarctica all year round.

Jet streams are caused by a combination of a planet's rotation on its axis and atmospheric heating (by solar radiation and, on some planets other than Earth, internal heat). The Coriolis effect describes how a planet's surface and atmosphere rotate fastest relative to each other at the planet's equator while virtually not rotating at all at the poles. While this speed difference generally has very little effect on a planet's surface, it plays an important role in atmospheric air currents because air at higher levels of the atmosphere, especially near the equator, must travel very fast to keep up with the planet's rotation. Thus there is a tendency for air at higher levels of the atmosphere to "slip" and fall behind the speed of the air below. This results in a pressure buildup behind the "slipped" air, and so some air will have to catch up by moving in the same general direction as the planet's rotation (west to east on Earth); however, this air does not follow a simple pattern but instead is also influenced by its temperature and water content compared to that of surrounding air regions. In essence, instead of the atmosphere moving along with the planet consistently, parts of the atmosphere travel faster than others via jet streams.

Jet streams form near boundaries of adjacent air masses with significant differences in temperature, such as the polar region and the warmer air towards the equator.[2]

Meteorologists use the location of some of the jet streams as an aid in weather forecasting. The main commercial relevance of the jet streams is in air travel, as flight time can be dramatically affected by either flying with the flow or against the flow of a jet stream. Clear-air turbulence, a potential hazard to aircraft, often is found in a jet stream's vicinity. One future benefit of jet streams could be to power airborne wind turbines.

Other jets also exist. During the northern hemisphere summer, easterly jets can form in tropical regions, typically in a region where dry air encounters more humid air at high altitudes. Low-level jets also are typical of various regions such as the central United States.


In general, winds are strongest under the tropopause (except during tornadoes, hurricanes or other anomalous situations). If two air masses of different temperatures or densities meet, the resulting pressure difference caused by the density difference (which causes wind) is highest within the transition zone. The wind does not flow directly from the hot to the cold area, but is deflected by the Coriolis effect and flows along the boundary of the two air masses.[22]

All these facts are consequences of the thermal wind relation. The balance of forces on an atmospheric parcel in the vertical direction is primarily between the pressure gradient and the force of gravity, a balance referred to as hydrostatic. In the horizontal, the dominant balance outside of the tropics is between the Coriolis effect and the pressure gradient, a balance referred to as geostrophic. Given both hydrostatic and geostrophic balance, one can derive the thermal wind relation: the vertical derivative of the horizontal wind is proportional to the horizontal temperature gradient. The sense of the relation is such that temperatures decreasing polewards implies that winds develop a larger eastward component as one moves upwards. Therefore, the strong eastward moving jet streams are in part a simple consequence of the fact that the equator is warmer than the north and south poles.[22]

The thermal wind relation does not immediately provide an explanation for why the winds are organized in tight jets, rather than distributed more broadly over the hemisphere. There are two factors that contribute to this sharpness of the jets. The first factor is the tendency for developing cyclonic disturbances in midlatitudes to form fronts — sharp localized gradients in temperature. The polar front jet stream can be thought of as the result of this frontogenesis process in midlatitudes, as the storms concentrate the north-south temperature contrast into relatively narrow regions.[15]
[edit] Polar jet

The polar jet stream can be thought of as the result of this frontogenesis process in midlatitudes.[15]
[edit] Subtropical jet

A second factor which contributes to jet sharpness is more appropriate for the subtropical jet, which forms at the poleward limit of the tropical Hadley cell. The subtropical jet forms at the poleward limit of the tropical Hadley cell and to first order this circulation is symmetric with respect to longitude. Tropical air rises to the tropopause, mainly because of thunderstorm systems in the intertropical convergence zone, and moves poleward before sinking; this is the Hadley circulation. As it does so it tends to conserve angular momentum, since friction is slight above the ground. In the northern hemisphere motions are deflected to the right by the Coriolis force, which for poleward (northward) moving air implies an increased eastward component of the winds.[23]. Around 30 degrees from the equator the jet wind speeds have become strong enough that were the jet to extend further polewards the increased windspeed would be unstable; thus the jet is limited.
[edit] Other planets

Jupiter's atmosphere has multiple jet streams, forming the familiar banded color structure, caused by internal heating.[19] The factors that control the number of jet streams in a planetary atmosphere is an active area of research in dynamical meteorology. In models, as one increases the planetary radius, holding all other parameters fixed, the number of jet streams increases.

ether way your nit picking my generalization the model and tests still hold up weather you use a perfect sphere or an oblate spheroid
since the jet streams are at high alt 10,000+ feet the slight bulging makes little difference in the model
there way both have to rotating on an axis that is orbiting a star

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

might need this too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect#Meteorology

Perhaps the most important instance of the Coriolis effect is in the large-scale dynamics of the oceans and the atmosphere. In meteorology and ocean science, it is convenient to use a rotating frame of reference where the Earth is stationary. The fictitious centrifugal and Coriolis forces must then be introduced. Their relative importance is determined by the Rossby number. Tornadoes have a high Rossby number, so Coriolis forces are unimportant, and are not discussed here.[22]

High pressure systems rotate in a direction such that the Coriolis force will be directed radially inwards, and nearly balanced by the outwardly radial pressure gradient. This direction is clockwise in the northern hemisphere and anticlockwise in the southern hemisphere. Low pressure systems rotate in the opposite direction, so that the Coriolis force is directed radially outward and nearly balances an inwardly radial pressure gradient. In each case a slight imbalance between the Coriolis force and the pressure gradient accounts for the radially inward acceleration of the system's circular motion.

Quote from: markjo on May 13, 2010, 07:39:31 PM

When you have some evidence that this "radiomagnetic" field affects light as you claim it does, don't forget me when you accept your Nobel Prize.  Until then, I'll just take this latest bit of nonsense as an admission that you have no plausible explanation for the observed phenomenon of the sun rising almost exactly due east and setting almost exactly due west on the days of the equinox almost anywhere on the earth being possible on Wilmore's (or any other) FE map.

You had only asked for an explanation, not evidence to support it.

No, I asked you to perform the observation yourself.

ether way your nit picking my generalization the model and tests still hold up weather you use a perfect sphere or an oblate spheroid

Please provide evidence for this, as well as reasons why the same effect could not be observed on a flat Earth.

No, I asked you to perform the observation yourself.

I cannot do this until September, and in any case I don't see what it would prove. I gave a perfectly good explanation for your prediction in FET.

Quote from: markjo on May 14, 2010, 05:01:07 AM

No, I asked you to perform the observation yourself.

I cannot do this until September, and in any case I don't see what it would prove.

You've been here for well over a year and have had at least 2 opportunities to perform this observation and you have failed to do so.  I see no reason to believe that you would perform the observation this coming September.

I gave a perfectly good explanation for your prediction in FET.

No, you didn't.  Your explanation isn't any good with out any evidence to support it.  It's merely gibberish.

All that making multiple measurements would prove is that on any one particular day, the length of a day in one particular location lasts for a particular length of time. It wouldn't prove anything about that location on other days, or other locations on that same day. Also, I don't have friends, let alone reliable ones.

I finally start to understand something about you. You do not have reliable friends, so your knowledge cannot progress beyond what a single little man can find in simple little books he can understand. You do not have the means or the will to travel beyond your usual routine travel, maybe from work to home and back.

So in fact your world is flat!. Your Earth is as flat as a pancake, since there is nothing far away you want or care about, and I am happy for you. For all you care, everything that is more than 100 kilometers away from your house does not exist.

My Earth is the same one that another 7 billion or so share, and it is round because the combined knowledge of us 7 billion has to be taken into account when creating my vision of Earth. I do care when someone like you indirectly calls idiots every single one of the Australians, who would have to have seen that North is not orthogonal to East in Australia if the world was like you say. I do care when someone like you indirectly calls idiots all of the South Americans, who would have to be too poor or too unintelligent to use telescopes for their sky to be like you say and not notice.

Quote from: Space Tourist on May 14, 2010, 02:35:36 AM

ether way your nit picking my generalization the model and tests still hold up weather you use a perfect sphere or an oblate spheroid

Please provide evidence for this, as well as reasons why the same effect could not be observed on a flat Earth.

ah there you go again asking to prove a negative
its on you im afraid to prove how Jet Streams would work on flat earth ill check back later
you also will need to provide a test that can be easily repeated that confirms your predictions
again my model based on the UofWy shows that you can only have a jet stream on a sphere 'like' remember in ether case the earth is not totally smooth ether again why it doesnt matter much shape it as as long as its nearly a sphere can predict with good accuracy where a balloon launched at a given alt and lon will end up

Check, your move