FET evidence?

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 01, 2010, 06:47:03 PM

They wouldn't be off-topic.  If you manage, somehow, to disprove the roundness of the Earth, you'd do it with evidence for the flatness (or other-shaped-ness) of the Earth, which is exactly what this topic is asking for.  The "I would, but I'm too lazy" thing is rather telling.

RET is not the default, FET is. Also, they have all been addressed. The FAQ, Wiki, and search function will elaborate.

FAQ is broken and those points explicitly are going agaisnt the FAQ. Wiki is not a proper source to disprove said questions and doesnt even ansewer them fully or at all and using a source from this site is pretty much going to show you have no other evidence but your own to disrpove them. And the Search function brought up topics that went unansewered. So please, elaborate us.

Oh bla bla bla.

Really Ben, we know FET is the default in this corner of the Web.  It would have to be, otherwise nothing makes sense.

Hell, I could easily say...

"The sun is actually a wormhole in space whose other end is open in front of a star on the underside of the Earth's infinite plane.  This allows heating from both sides (geothermal energy and solar energy).  The gravity lensing effect of the wormhole aperture causes the sun to have odd effects, which includes appearing to "set" when it's really just moving around in an orbit"

See, this is a valid FE idea.  It has no evidence, no physics to back it up, nothing....  And it's still Flat Earth valid.

How about this, you can simply link some evidence, provided by a scientist who is not a member of this forum AND living, who can support anything in your Wiki or FAQ.  Think you can do that, or are you too lazy?

This post reeks of appeals to authority over logic.

They haven't been addressed competently.  It's as I said before: they all shout conspiracy or create wild new forces that only apply in certain places at certain times for no apparent reason all to keep to the original presupposition.

Your refusal to accept evidence that contradicts the beliefs to have been indoctrinated into is not the failure of FET.

Really Ben, we know FET is the default in this corner of the Web.  It would have to be, otherwise nothing makes sense.

Hell, I could easily say...

"The sun is actually a wormhole in space whose other end is open in front of a star on the underside of the Earth's infinite plane.  This allows heating from both sides (geothermal energy and solar energy).  The gravity lensing effect of the wormhole aperture causes the sun to have odd effects, which includes appearing to "set" when it's really just moving around in an orbit"

See, this is a valid FE idea.  It has no evidence, no physics to back it up, nothing....  And it's still Flat Earth valid.

False. If I really need to elaborate, then you are a lost cause.

False. If I really need to elaborate, then you are a lost cause.

Why are you rejecting his sun-is-actually-a-wormhole idea?  What a hypocrite.

I fail to see how those statements contradict in anyway.

I didn't say that there was any contradiction.  You said that the earth appears flat and there is no valid evidence to the contrary.  That sounds an awful lot like you assuming that the evidence for FET is more valid than the evidence for RET.

Why are you rejecting his sun-is-actually-a-wormhole idea?  What a hypocrite.

I was not rejecting the idea, I was rejecting this

See, this is a valid FE idea.  It has no evidence, no physics to back it up, nothing....  And it's still Flat Earth valid.

I didn't say that there was any contradiction.  You said that the earth appears flat and there is no valid evidence to the contrary.  That sounds an awful lot like you assuming that the evidence for FET is more valid than the evidence for RET.

You are making baseless assumptions.

Quote from: dude55 on May 01, 2010, 07:12:08 PM

Really Ben, we know FET is the default in this corner of the Web.  It would have to be, otherwise nothing makes sense.

Hell, I could easily say...

"The sun is actually a wormhole in space whose other end is open in front of a star on the underside of the Earth's infinite plane.  This allows heating from both sides (geothermal energy and solar energy).  The gravity lensing effect of the wormhole aperture causes the sun to have odd effects, which includes appearing to "set" when it's really just moving around in an orbit"

See, this is a valid FE idea.  It has no evidence, no physics to back it up, nothing....  And it's still Flat Earth valid.

False. If I really need to elaborate, then you are a lost cause.

You quoted using Dude55's name....

How do you actually quote things Ben because it doesn't look like it's working very well.

Anyway, allow me to elaborate:

Bendy light.
Organic Moon.
Celestial Gears.

Taking just those three.  None of them have any evidence to support them specifically.  None of them have any physics to back them up either.  Light only bends with gravity as far as physics is concerned.  It refracts in a medium but that's not bending as I understand it.
The moon's organic nature has no proof as it relies on you looking at it and saying "oh, that's not a shadow, it just looks like one.  It's really a giant migratory organism/weather pattern".
Celestial gears is even worse.  It puts the Earth inside a mechanical dome with rotating slots.  Again, no physics to back that up unless you want to claim that the Universe is an artificially created thing.

So, no evidence, no physics to back it up, nothing... And those three are acceptable as FE ideas.

I also find it laughable that you claim that my final sentence was at fault and not the "idea" even though I have no evidence, physics or really anything to back it up.  Are you saying that it's valid even though it has nothing?

You quoted using Dude55's name....

Fixed

Bendy light.
Organic Moon.
Celestial Gears.

Cool, you picked three fringe theories that I don't ascribe too.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 01, 2010, 07:44:36 PM

You quoted using Dude55's name....

Fixed

Quote from: Lorddave on May 01, 2010, 07:44:36 PM

Bendy light.
Organic Moon.
Celestial Gears.

Cool, you picked three fringe theories that I don't ascribe too.

If you don't subscribe to those then how can you think the Earth is Flat?  There's FAR too many things that don't work such as different stars being visible in different areas of the world at the same time.  (ie. Northern and Southern Hemisphere)
You also have the "shadow" on the moon. That's got to be cast by something.
And you have the Sun, which appears to retain it's size throughout the day and sink below the horizon. 

If you don't subscribe to those then how can you think the Earth is Flat?  There's FAR too many things that don't work such as different stars being visible in different areas of the world at the same time.  (ie. Northern and Southern Hemisphere)
You also have the "shadow" on the moon. That's got to be cast by something.
And you have the Sun, which appears to retain it's size throughout the day and sink below the horizon. 

Sky mirror.
Anti-moon.
Perspective.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 01, 2010, 07:52:05 PM

If you don't subscribe to those then how can you think the Earth is Flat?  There's FAR too many things that don't work such as different stars being visible in different areas of the world at the same time.  (ie. Northern and Southern Hemisphere)
You also have the "shadow" on the moon. That's got to be cast by something.
And you have the Sun, which appears to retain it's size throughout the day and sink below the horizon. 

Sky mirror.
Anti-moon.
Perspective.

Ah!
There we go.
So, Sky Mirror: No evidence to suggest that.  You can't exactly test that can you?  Though I admit to not being very familiar with it.

Anti-Moon: Ahhh, so you believe that this Anti-Moon blocks out stars when blocking out parts of the Moon and also makes it appear as though there is a shadow on the surface of the moon?  Yet there is no evidence of it is there?  If you took a picture of the moon during a half moon outside in the mountains where there was no light pollution, would you see the Anti-Moon?  How can there BE a half moon anyway?  Is the Anti-Moon flat on one end?  And where is the radio telescope evidence that says there's a large, physical object we can't see orbiting about 30,000 miles away? 

Perspective doesn't work I'm afraid.  This is the easiest to disprove.  How?  Go to your local airport and watch planes fly away.  They get smaller and smaller and smaller.  They don't stay the same.
Oh and the Sun's intensity wouldn't allow it's size to remain constant.  You CAN use a filter to tone down the light intensity you know.


So...
No evidence to back up any of these.  No physics either. (An Anti-Moon would cause some interesting tidal disruptions)
Unless I'm mistaken and you have all sorts of data to show these of course...

There must be something preventing us from seeing the other stars, while also showing a different set of stars. A reflective object fits those requirements perfectly. From our standpoint of limited knowledge, it is the most likely theory.

Yes, you can see the anti-moon. Look at the moon during an eclipse.

Read ENaG.

Quote from: markjo on May 01, 2010, 07:27:00 PM

I didn't say that there was any contradiction.  You said that the earth appears flat and there is no valid evidence to the contrary.  That sounds an awful lot like you assuming that the evidence for FET is more valid than the evidence for RET.

You are making baseless assumptions.

How so?  You're the one saying that there is no valid evidence for RET.  Are you saying that there is no valid evidence for FET either?

Yes, you can see the anti-moon. Look at the moon during an eclipse.

Does the anti-moon act as the FAQ claims?

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on May 01, 2010, 07:37:41 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 01, 2010, 07:27:00 PM

I didn't say that there was any contradiction.  You said that the earth appears flat and there is no valid evidence to the contrary.  That sounds an awful lot like you assuming that the evidence for FET is more valid than the evidence for RET.

You are making baseless assumptions.

How so?  You're the one saying that there is no valid evidence for RET.  Are you saying that there is no valid evidence for FET either?

I never claimed that.

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on May 01, 2010, 08:04:58 PM

Yes, you can see the anti-moon. Look at the moon during an eclipse.

Does the anti-moon act as the FAQ claims?

Possibly.

If it did, why would the sun only shine in two directions?

There must be something preventing us from seeing the other stars, while also showing a different set of stars. A reflective object fits those requirements perfectly. From our standpoint of limited knowledge, it is the most likely theory.

Yes, you can see the anti-moon. Look at the moon during an eclipse.

Read ENaG.

1. As does a round Earth.  Different perspectives, different views.  As I said, there's no evidence to support your sky mirror nor is there any known physics that would explain how a giant reflective surface is in space specifically for the Earth.  
2. Lunar or Solar?  But either way, it should exist without an eclipse should it not?  Isn't that how you explain the phases of the moon?

3. I've already been told by John Davis that much of the book is junk.  I've read enough to confirm that.  And yes, I read the chapter in question:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm
and
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za28.htm

He is right in that objects in the distance appear to rise from the horizon.  
In the next chapter he addresses this by saying that the glare of the sun makes it look bigger than it is because it's going through more atmosphere.

Well the sun must have a VERY wide cone spotlight because according to him, the whole face of the sun sines on the Earth.  A very large cone indeed.  So large, in fact, that it must be a dome.  Fig. 66, after all, shows one observer but it should be noted that the sun must show noon for an observer at C, sunset at some observer to the left of C, ect...  

But that really doesn't explain the whole "coming up from the horizon".  Objects in the distance converge onto a single point at the viewer's eye.  This is perspective.  This means the ground appears to climb, the sky sink, and everything squishes into a single point at eye level.

http://jhh.blogs.com/anthos/images/perspective_1.jpg

See?
The sun should actually go into the distance and get smaller and smaller until it disappears when the "cone" finally stops shining on the observer.  He even draws the lamps getting smaller and smaller (fig. 63) as they go into the distance, which is true, but then draws the sun actually SET and not getting smaller and smaller in fig. 64

The fact that the sun doesn't get smaller and smaller as it goes into the distance puts that at a moot point.  In fact, it doesn't appear to change at all relative to the rest of the surrounding area.  The sun won't shrink in size with the landscape.  It is a constant size as it goes lower and lower.

Allow me to use ENaG to demonstrate:
I took two figures, 63 and 64 and scaled them up so they were twice as wide as the original.  It was hard to read them otherwise.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/Lord_dave/fig63scaled.jpg

That's the original scaled up only.  It's still accurate compared to the non-scaled one.
Using the sun from 64 (again, scaled up) and posted it as being above the lamp post.  Just to simulate perspective.

I then took that lamp post + sun area, copied it, pasted it, then shrank it so the lamp post matched the size of the other ones.  As you can see, the sun got smaller and smaller and smaller....
Since this doesn't happen, perspective doesn't work.

Known physics does not understand the concept of a mirror? Really?

It is one theory that explains the phases of the moon.

Those points have been addressed, specifically by Tom Bishop. Lurk moar.

If it did, why would the sun only shine in two directions?

The sun shines in all directions. The reason it does not hit a part of the Earth is due to the slight opaqueness of the atmoplane blocking it.

The reason it does not hit a part of the Earth is due to the slight opaqueness of the atmoplane blocking it.

How could "slight opaqueness" completely block all radiation?  And where's the evidence that atmosphere goes from being completely invisible to completely opaque across such a small distance?

How could "slight opaqueness" completely block all radiation?

wat. Where did I claim that?

And where's the evidence that atmosphere goes from being completely invisible to completely opaque across such a small distance?

In the simple fact that we see the sun in North America, but not in Asia.

Where did I claim that?

Where I quoted.  Then again, FEers tend to be purposely vague so they can shift definitions when necessary.  What did you mean by where the sun's light reached?

In the simple fact that we see the sun in North America, but not in Asia.

No.  It isn't.  Is the sun's radiation different from other kinds?  By your idea, we shouldn't be able to see stars or the light reflected from planets, because they're much further out and are going through even more of that sometimes-invisible-sometimes-opaque atmosphere you claim has such a nice cut-off point with its distance.

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 01, 2010, 09:14:49 PM

How could "slight opaqueness" completely block all radiation?

wat. Where did I claim that?

Right here

The sun shines in all directions. The reason it does not hit a part of the Earth is due to the slight opaqueness of the atmoplane blocking it.

Or did you mean something else?

See, this all points toward my theory that you guys just make up shit as you go along.  You are so HELL BENT on denying that the Earth is round, you will say anything to try to convince people other wise, even if what you say makes no fucking sense whatsoever!

Where I quoted.  Then again, FEers tend to be purposely vague so they can shift definitions when necessary.  What did you mean by where the sin's[sic] light reached?

Generally, it means areas that the sun's light has reached.

No.  It isn't.  Is the sun's radiation different from other kinds?  By your idea, we shouldn't be able to see stars or the light reflected from planets, because they're much further out and are going through even more of that sometimes-invisible-sometimes-opaque atmosphere you claim has such a nice cut-off point with its distance.

Quit using the vague term of "radiation". There is more than one kind of radiation the sun emits. Also, yes, the sun is different then the stars.

...the sun is different then the stars.

Evidence?

Known physics does not understand the concept of a mirror? Really?

It is one theory that explains the phases of the moon.

Those points have been addressed, specifically by Tom Bishop. Lurk moar.

1. Known physics doesn't understand the concept of a giant (millions of miles wide) space mirror that reflects all EM radiation with perfect clarity.  Nothing I know of will reflect all energy perfectly, without any diffusion or distortion, and all frequencies. (From radio to gamma)

2. Again it has no evidence to back it up.  This "anti-moon" appears in full only during an eclipse, blocks incomming light from the moon and makes it look like a shadow and when it does, it alters it's shape to fit the shape of the unlit moon face perfectly.  And worst?  Not even a single radio telescope says it exists.  Hell, you could point the radio telescope at the moon during a half-moon and, by the Anti-Moon idea, you'd get two signals bounce back with very different times.  (by very I mean several nano seconds)

3. Tom Bishop eh?  You mean in the wiki?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Magnification+of+the+Sun+at+Sunset

Yeah and?
I like this shot better, helps illustrate my point:
http://community.webshots.com/photo/fullsize/2407431410055414912cYsoVG

Yes there is a glaring effect but it's not due to the atmosphere.  The light from the cars is entering the camera at a different angle than the cars closer to the Camera.  You start to get the glaring effect about 5 cars back in the lane traveling towards the camera to the left.  The farthest lane, however, doesn't start to glare until about 7 cars back.

THEN you need to add in the fact that there are many light sources all converging onto a single point.

So yeah, the sun will get hazy but it should shrink into the distance towards a single point, not sink below the horizon as a large, hazy image.

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on May 01, 2010, 09:34:03 PM

...the sun is different then the stars.

Evidence?

Look in the sky. You, generally, see them only at opposite times of the day, and there appears to be massive size differences.

Lorddave:
1. Who claimed there was no distortion?
2. Look at the moon during an eclipse, you can see the anti-moon blocking light.
3. Please read the wiki page closer.

Look in the sky. You, generally, see them only at opposite times of the day, and there appears to be massive size differences.

This is not evidence that the sun is different than other stars.  It is evidence that, from our perspective, the sun APPEARS different than other stars.  You know how closer things appear bigger, right?

This is not evidence that the sun is different than other stars.  It is evidence that, from our perspective, the sun APPEARS different than other stars.  You know how closer things appear bigger, right?

You may as well say that rocks and giraffes are the same thing. They just appear different because of our perspective.

You may as well say that rocks and giraffes are the same thing. They just appear different because of our perspective.

Reductio ad absurdum.  Rocks and giraffes look nothing alike when observed via spectrometer.  Rocks and giraffes don't have similar motion.  Rocks and giraffes don't exert similar properties.  They're made of completely different arrangements of different proportions of elements.  You're wasting everyone's time with this absurdity.