FET evidence?

Quote from: markjo on May 02, 2010, 08:20:27 AM

Did you know that outside this site, the George Scott Fallacy is pretty much unheard of?  You may want to explain that reference when you use it, especially to noobs.

markjo, what's my policy on lurking?

Quote from: Lorddave on May 02, 2010, 08:40:41 AM

1. Could be the Earth and it's position around the sun.  After all, how can there be evidence of a sky mirror if the sky mirror replicates a Round Earth model universe perfectly?

2. And you've repeatedly and personally verified that there is an Anti-moon?  How often have you landed on it?  And since it breaks all known physics (star light goes through it) it can't be verified can it?

3. You don't know do you?

1. Because there is no evidence for a round earth.

2. I've verified it's existence. Look at the moon during an eclipse and you can see it blocking light.

3. Obviously I know, otherwise I wouldn't suggest you to read it.

Quote from: markjo on May 02, 2010, 08:20:27 AM

Did you know that outside this site, the George Scott Fallacy is pretty much unheard of?  You may want to explain that reference when you use it, especially to noobs.

markjo, what's my policy on lurking?

The George Scot Fallacy isn't something that is mentioned all that often.  You used that reference as if it was well known.  I'm guessing that even some of the regulars need to look it up to remember what it is.

1. I say there is.  Just being able to see the ISS in the sky proves that it's possible to orbit the Earth.  And since the math required to orbit the Earth requires gravity AND a spherical Earth... the only thing you can say in response is "NASA fakes it".  Of which you have no evidence since you haven't personally seen NASA faking data have you?

2. I see light being blocked, but not by a solid object. I see light being blocked by a shadow, which would easily explain why stars can be seen next to the moon.

3. Logical fallacy.  You could have easily suggested it based purely on the title without any understanding of the material or of what you consider to be my error in it's understanding.  You think that by reading a passage over and over again that it will suddenly make sense.  I'm sorry but I've been in education long enough to know that it doesn't work that way.  Understanding doesn't come from memorization, it comes from explanation.  So explain.

Quote from: markjo on May 02, 2010, 10:50:38 AM

The George Scot Fallacy isn't something that is mentioned all that often.  You used that reference as if it was well known.  I'm guessing that even some of the regulars need to look it up to remember what it is.

I see you're new to this forum. There's a feature known as the "search" function.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 02, 2010, 10:40:05 AM

1. I say there is.  Just being able to see the ISS in the sky proves that it's possible to orbit the Earth.  And since the math required to orbit the Earth requires gravity AND a spherical Earth... the only thing you can say in response is "NASA fakes it".  Of which you have no evidence since you haven't personally seen NASA faking data have you?

Do you have any evidence that is actually the ISS and not a hologram or balloon?

Quote from: Lorddave on May 02, 2010, 10:40:05 AM

2. I see light being blocked, but not by a solid object. I see light being blocked by a shadow, which would easily explain why stars can be seen next to the moon.

The anti-moon's shadow, yes. It still explains the stars.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 02, 2010, 10:40:05 AM

3. Logical fallacy.  You could have easily suggested it based purely on the title without any understanding of the material or of what you consider to be my error in it's understanding.  You think that by reading a passage over and over again that it will suddenly make sense.  I'm sorry but I've been in education long enough to know that it doesn't work that way.  Understanding doesn't come from memorization, it comes from explanation.  So explain.

The wiki page contains a rather good explanation.

The anti-moon's shadow, yes. It still explains the stars.

I've verified it's existence. Look at the moon during an eclipse and you can see it blocking light.

1. Well since holographic technology doesn't exist in that form yet and balloons don't go in perfectly orbit around the planet (see wind currents) then I'm going to say... yes.

2. And what is lighting the moon then?

3. Well it's obviously failing me so why don't you try explaining it in your own words.  Might make better sense to me.

So you're NOT seeing the anti-moon?  You're seeing a shadow being cast on the regular moon, and creating an entirely new celestial body just from that?

Quote from: Lorddave on May 02, 2010, 10:40:05 AM

1. I say there is.  Just being able to see the ISS in the sky proves that it's possible to orbit the Earth.  And since the math required to orbit the Earth requires gravity AND a spherical Earth... the only thing you can say in response is "NASA fakes it".  Of which you have no evidence since you haven't personally seen NASA faking data have you?

Do you have any evidence that is actually the ISS and not a hologram or balloon?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3639000/3639055.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3203000/3203038.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/17/check-time-space-shuttle-discovery/
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/18/russian-soyuz-craft-returns-earth-iss/
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/11/19/astronauts-repair-iss-hour-spacewalk/
http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/space-exploration/international-space-station-article.html

Basically, people have been there. Not a few, but quite a lot actually. Now in turn you'll need to give evidence they didn't.

Logically, something has to cast that shadow. We simple call it the "anti-moon".

Quote from: Lorddave on May 02, 2010, 10:57:57 AM

1. Well since holographic technology doesn't exist in that form yet and balloons don't go in perfectly orbit around the planet (see wind currents) then I'm going to say... yes.

Ah, so you're ignorance leads to the conclusion that NASA is ignorant on how to fake this. Interesting.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 02, 2010, 10:57:57 AM

2. And what is lighting the moon then?

The moon appears to be self-luminous.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 02, 2010, 10:57:57 AM

3. Well it's obviously failing me so why don't you try explaining it in your own words.  Might make better sense to me.

If you can't understand that simple explanation, then I can not help you.

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 02, 2010, 11:02:15 AM

So you're NOT seeing the anti-moon?  You're seeing a shadow being cast on the regular moon, and creating an entirely new celestial body just from that?

Logically, something has to cast that shadow. We simple call it the "anti-moon".

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on May 02, 2010, 11:05:09 AM

Logically, something has to cast that shadow. We simple call it the "anti-moon".

By that definition, the Earth is the anti-moon.

By that definition, the Earth is the anti-moon.

1. I'm sure you can't make a 3D hologram projected into orbit either nor do you know of any physics to do it.  If you did, you could make billions in the entertainment industry.  But hey, I'd like to see you fake it.  Go on, put the Starship Enterprise up there.

2. So you're saying that you can cast a shadow on a light source?  So if I take a flash light, I can block light coming out of the flash light via shadow?

3. You're right, you can't.  You can't explain something you don't understand yourself.

Except, under FET, the Earth does not cast the shadow. The anti-moon is, to my knowledge, exclusive to FET.

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on May 02, 2010, 11:15:28 AM

Except, under FET, the Earth does not cast the shadow. The anti-moon is, to my knowledge, exclusive to FET.

If you define the anti-moon as the thing that casts a shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse, then Earth is the anti-moon.  That is, unless you want to change the definition of "lunar eclipse."

Quote from: Catchpa on May 02, 2010, 11:09:58 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3639000/3639055.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3203000/3203038.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/17/check-time-space-shuttle-discovery/
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/18/russian-soyuz-craft-returns-earth-iss/
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/11/19/astronauts-repair-iss-hour-spacewalk/
http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/space-exploration/international-space-station-article.html

Basically, people have been there. Not a few, but quite a lot actually. Now in turn you'll need to give evidence they didn't.

So people who have a stake in the space agencies claim to have been to space? They are hardly impartial.

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 02, 2010, 11:12:20 AM

By that definition, the Earth is the anti-moon.

Except, under FET, the Earth does not cast the shadow. The anti-moon is, to my knowledge, exclusive to FET.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 02, 2010, 11:13:13 AM

1. I'm sure you can't make a 3D hologram projected into orbit either nor do you know of any physics to do it.  If you did, you could make billions in the entertainment industry.  But hey, I'd like to see you fake it.  Go on, put the Starship Enterprise up there.

I also don't have the budget or personal NASA has.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 02, 2010, 11:13:13 AM

2. So you're saying that you can cast a shadow on a light source?  So if I take a flash light, I can block light coming out of the flash light via shadow?

It can block the light, from the moon, from reaching us.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 02, 2010, 11:13:13 AM

3. You're right, you can't.  You can't explain something you don't understand yourself.

And you can't understand what is laid out, simply, on the wiki page.

A bunch of people from NASA, ESA, RKA, JAXA and CSA would have to be in on it, along with 185 people who have been there. You're simply moving the goalpost, which is ironic seeing as I mentioned it before in this thread.
    * Moving the goalpost (raising the bar): argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded

1. Correct.  So your entire basis is "I can't disprove it so it must be true"?

2. Can you show me any other example where a light source is blocked by a shadow?  (ie. like a flashlight having

3. Not according to you.  I think I understand it fine.  Tom says that the light from the sun passes through a thicker atmosphere as it get's farther away.  This causes the light to diffuse and appear larger than it really is.  He then goes on to say it happens with car and city lights.  He then goes on to say that a flashlight pointed at a wall will have a larger radius of light the farther away it is from the wall  and smaller radius the closer to the wall it is.

Quote from: Catchpa on May 02, 2010, 11:24:51 AM

A bunch of people from NASA, ESA, RKA, JAXA and CSA would have to be in on it, along with 185 people who have been there. You're simply moving the goalpost, which is ironic seeing as I mentioned it before in this thread.
    * Moving the goalpost (raising the bar): argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded

I'm simply pointing out that, for fairly obvious reasons, that evidence is not valid. It's hardly "moving the goalpost". I might as well just draw an MS paint picture to prove FET, it's of the same legitimacy.

What do you mean by "stake"?

Quote from: Lorddave on May 02, 2010, 11:13:13 AM

1. Correct.  So your entire basis is "I can't disprove it so it must be true"?

No, it's simply that you can't verify the legitimacy, so you should not trust it's validity.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 02, 2010, 11:13:13 AM

2. Can you show me any other example where a light source is blocked by a shadow?  (ie. like a flashlight having

Sure. A book in front of a flashlight.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 02, 2010, 11:13:13 AM

3. Not according to you.  I think I understand it fine.  Tom says that the light from the sun passes through a thicker atmosphere as it get's farther away.  This causes the light to diffuse and appear larger than it really is.  He then goes on to say it happens with car and city lights.  He then goes on to say that a flashlight pointed at a wall will have a larger radius of light the farther away it is from the wall  and smaller radius the closer to the wall it is.

What's the confusion?

1. Well I trust my eyes and my eyes say that there is an ISS in orbit.  And since the only way to "know" it's there by your standards is to go up there, I'm out of luck because if I did, you'd claim I was part of the conspiracy and thus invalid as a source of data.  Can't have it both ways.
False. It's simply foolish to have someone testify for an organization they have a stake in.
2. I think you need a dictionary, a book is not a shadow.   A book is a solid object that blocks line of sight.  A shadow does not block line of sight.  A shadow is simply a lack of light on a surface.  Since the moon is self illuminating(according to you), it's impossible to create a shadow on it.
A book can have a shadow.
3. If I apply a polarized filter to filter out the diffuse light, I still see a circle.  And during sunset, the sun is very well defined in it's shape.  When looking at car headlights from a distance, they appear fuzzy around the edges, far more than the sun does.  It doesn't look like diffusion. (that's the magnification BTW)
You are clearly misinterpreting something, I'd suggest reading the page again.

Quote from: Catchpa on May 02, 2010, 11:38:49 AM

What do you mean by "stake"?

If I worked for a company, I wouldn't want it to be revealed it's a fraud. Then I'd be out of a job.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 02, 2010, 11:47:39 AM

1. Well I trust my eyes and my eyes say that there is an ISS in orbit.  And since the only way to "know" it's there by your standards is to go up there, I'm out of luck because if I did, you'd claim I was part of the conspiracy and thus invalid as a source of data.  Can't have it both ways.
False. It's simply foolish to have someone testify for an organization they have a stake in.
2. I think you need a dictionary, a book is not a shadow.   A book is a solid object that blocks line of sight.  A shadow does not block line of sight.  A shadow is simply a lack of light on a surface.  Since the moon is self illuminating(according to you), it's impossible to create a shadow on it.
A book can have a shadow.
3. If I apply a polarized filter to filter out the diffuse light, I still see a circle.  And during sunset, the sun is very well defined in it's shape.  When looking at car headlights from a distance, they appear fuzzy around the edges, far more than the sun does.  It doesn't look like diffusion. (that's the magnification BTW)
You are clearly misinterpreting something, I'd suggest reading the page again.

Charles Simonyi wouldn't (be out of a job).

1. So the billionaire who went up to the ISS via the Russians has a stake in the organization too?  Why wouldn't I then?
You both very well could.
2. Why yes it can, when a light source is put on the book, the shadow appears on the opposite side of the book.  How exactly does a shadow appear on the same side as the light source casting said shadow?  And how does it not block Line of Sight between the observer and the flash light?  If I look at a flash light (the moon) then put a book in front of it, the flash light is hidden behind the book.  There is no shadow cast on the moon.
Who said there was only one light source?
3. After you seem to have acknowledged that I understood the page, you then say I don't?  Have you considered that the explanation might be wrong?
It appeared you understood. You have a great ability to pretend to understand.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 02, 2010, 11:59:26 AM

1. So the billionaire who went up to the ISS via the Russians has a stake in the organization too?  Why wouldn't I then?
You both very well could.
2. Why yes it can, when a light source is put on the book, the shadow appears on the opposite side of the book.  How exactly does a shadow appear on the same side as the light source casting said shadow?  And how does it not block Line of Sight between the observer and the flash light?  If I look at a flash light (the moon) then put a book in front of it, the flash light is hidden behind the book.  There is no shadow cast on the moon.
Who said there was only one light source?
3. After you seem to have acknowledged that I understood the page, you then say I don't?  Have you considered that the explanation might be wrong?
It appeared you understood. You have a great ability to pretend to understand.

1. Thus you'd render our testimonies invalid.  So how would one prove the ISS is real or not real?
Personal inspection.
2. I don't really care how many light sources you have.  You can't cast a shadow on a light source.  A shadow is, by definition, "A shadow is an area where direct light from a light source cannot reach due to obstruction by an object."  Since the moon is it's own light source, it can't have a shadow cast on it.  This is undeniable physics.
That is how you define a shadow.
3. Understanding something doesn't mean it's accurate.  A man can understand a lie.
That page is not a lie. If you think it is, you are misunderstanding it.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 02, 2010, 12:18:47 PM

1. Thus you'd render our testimonies invalid.  So how would one prove the ISS is real or not real?
Personal inspection.
2. I don't really care how many light sources you have.  You can't cast a shadow on a light source.  A shadow is, by definition, "A shadow is an area where direct light from a light source cannot reach due to obstruction by an object."  Since the moon is it's own light source, it can't have a shadow cast on it.  This is undeniable physics.
That is how you define a shadow.
3. Understanding something doesn't mean it's accurate.  A man can understand a lie.
That page is not a lie. If you think it is, you are misunderstanding it.

Personal inspection.

You went from "Do you have proof?" to "They need to not have a stake in the space program" to "I need to be there myself".

Classic case of moving the goalpost.

1. So only if YOU flew up would you believe it?  You must not believe in places you've never been.
I am one of the few I can guarantee is not biased in my findings.
2. So a shadow, to you, is an object that stops light from reaching it's destination but not due to obstruction?
That is not a complete definition.
3. I never said it's a lie.  I said it's not an accurate explanation.  What was said is true for the most part.  Light does diffuse though the atmosphere which can make a single point of light seem like it's bigger.  But this isn't magnification and the edges are always fuzzy.  Plus you can filter out the diffuse light to see the true shape.  And for the sun, a circular spotlight, to maintain a perfect circle it it can't be viewed at an ever increasing angle.
It's astounding how you can sound correct, but still fail to grasp the basic concept.

Quote from: Catchpa on May 02, 2010, 12:37:01 PM

You went from "Do you have proof?" to "They need to not have a stake in the space program" to "I need to be there myself".

Classic case of moving the goalpost.

That's hardly "moving the goal post". The only way to get valid evidence is from a valid source, and I'm the only source I can guarantee is valid.