Unified FET

  • 26 Replies
  • 5713 Views
*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Unified FET
« on: May 03, 2010, 04:18:48 PM »
I would like to see a unified FET, so as to actually give this society a smidge of actual respect and would help promote FES ideas in general.

Would it be possible for the FES to hammer a single unified FES? Or is the conflicting ideas and the various pull-it-out-of-your-ass explainations top hard to put together?

Surely a good step in this society's rule is to get a unified theory and then work from there to incorporate more explainations and ideas to explain the various scientific data that the society has fallen flat on its face to explain.
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

?

frozen_berries

  • 633
  • Posts: 78231234
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2010, 04:36:36 PM »
I'd say that the information available on the FAQ/Wiki is the official theory of this forum, however people will always have their own views.

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2010, 05:58:27 PM »
I would like to see a unified FET, so as to actually give this society a smidge of actual respect and would help promote FES ideas in general.

Would it be possible for the FES to hammer a single unified FES? Or is the conflicting ideas and the various pull-it-out-of-your-ass explainations top hard to put together?

Surely a good step in this society's rule is to get a unified theory and then work from there to incorporate more explainations and ideas to explain the various scientific data that the society has fallen flat on its face to explain.

That's a bad idea. If you make it into one unified theory, then it can be scrutinized and torn to shreds by scientists and civilians alike. the organic nature of FET allows it to leap beyond the impediments of any would be objectors. This will mark the death of FET's acceptance into society. that is unless you guys go the Scientology route, and establish a front company that given information to the uneducated peoples of the world. But this too will fail do to the rise of global communications such as the internet.
If you do manage to grow FES into the millions category, then Anonymous might find out, and troll you to death.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42687
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2010, 06:50:09 PM »
I'd say that the information available on the FAQ/Wiki is the official theory of this forum, however people will always have their own views.

Since Tom Bishop wrote most of the wiki, it essentially promotes Rowbotham's version of FET.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Lorddave

  • 18282
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2010, 07:30:00 PM »
I'd say that the information available on the FAQ/Wiki is the official theory of this forum, however people will always have their own views.

Since Tom Bishop wrote most of the wiki, it essentially promotes Rowbotham's version of FET.

It should be noted that, John Davis admits that ENaG is mostly junk.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #5 on: May 03, 2010, 09:49:04 PM »
I would like to see a unified FET, so as to actually give this society a smidge of actual respect and would help promote FES ideas in general.

Would it be possible for the FES to hammer a single unified FES? Or is the conflicting ideas and the various pull-it-out-of-your-ass explainations top hard to put together?

Surely a good step in this society's rule is to get a unified theory and then work from there to incorporate more explainations and ideas to explain the various scientific data that the society has fallen flat on its face to explain.

That's a bad idea. If you make it into one unified theory, then it can be scrutinized and torn to shreds by scientists and civilians alike. the organic nature of FET allows it to leap beyond the impediments of any would be objectors. This will mark the death of FET's acceptance into society. that is unless you guys go the Scientology route, and establish a front company that given information to the uneducated peoples of the world. But this too will fail do to the rise of global communications such as the internet.
If you do manage to grow FES into the millions category, then Anonymous might find out, and troll you to death.

Even without a unified theory, the basic premise of having a flat earth is subject to near limitless scrutiny. The only conceivable way of pulling that one off is by creating a dozen NEW forces, that only seem to work predictably under very specific criteria and fail to explain anything half as well (or new) as our current scientific theories. The FE's make their case worse by trying to explain away the problems, which in turn create another dozen new problems.

I don't think unification would solve anything or garner anymore respect. Especially when the fallback answer is "the data is unreliable" or "conspiracy!".
« Last Edit: May 03, 2010, 09:50:39 PM by Deceiver »

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6758
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2010, 09:54:59 PM »
I would like to see a unified FET, so as to actually give this society a smidge of actual respect and would help promote FES ideas in general.

Would it be possible for the FES to hammer a single unified FES? Or is the conflicting ideas and the various pull-it-out-of-your-ass explainations top hard to put together?

Surely a good step in this society's rule is to get a unified theory and then work from there to incorporate more explainations and ideas to explain the various scientific data that the society has fallen flat on its face to explain.

I would like to see a unified theory of physics, so as to actually give physicists a smidgen of actual respect and would help promote physics ideas in general.

Would it be possible for the physicists to hammer a single unified theory of physics? Or is the conflicting ideas and the various pull-it-out-of-your-ass explanations top hard to put together?

Surely a good step in the physicists rule is to get a unified theory and then work from there to incorporate more explanations and ideas to explain the various scientific data that the physicists has fallen flat on their faces to explain.



PS: I corrected your spelling, but left your atrocious grammar intact.

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #7 on: May 03, 2010, 10:26:04 PM »
I would like to see a unified FET, so as to actually give this society a smidge of actual respect and would help promote FES ideas in general.

Would it be possible for the FES to hammer a single unified FES? Or is the conflicting ideas and the various pull-it-out-of-your-ass explainations top hard to put together?

Surely a good step in this society's rule is to get a unified theory and then work from there to incorporate more explainations and ideas to explain the various scientific data that the society has fallen flat on its face to explain.

I would like to see a unified theory of physics, so as to actually give physicists a smidgen of actual respect and would help promote physics ideas in general.

Would it be possible for the physicists to hammer a single unified theory of physics? Or is the conflicting ideas and the various pull-it-out-of-your-ass explanations top hard to put together?

Surely a good step in the physicists rule is to get a unified theory and then work from there to incorporate more explanations and ideas to explain the various scientific data that the physicists has fallen flat on their faces to explain.



PS: I corrected your spelling, but left your atrocious grammar intact.

Physicists are actually attempting a unified theory, that is MUCH more than any FE'er can claim. Also, I think the fact that modern physics explains (very well even) 99.99pct of all physical phenomenon pretty much perfectly, says quite a bit. They have trouble getting forces under the unimaginably small scale of things to match up with the unimaginably large scale of things. For everything you or I could possibly ever encounter in our lifetime, the physics don't break down.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6758
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #8 on: May 03, 2010, 10:58:06 PM »
Physicists are actually attempting a unified theory...

I'm glad you understood the parallel I was drawing.

Also, I think the fact that modern physics explains (very well even) 99.99pct of all physical phenomenon pretty much perfectly, says quite a bit.

Do you have any proof for these outlandish claims?

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #9 on: May 03, 2010, 11:15:43 PM »
Physicists are actually attempting a unified theory...

I'm glad you understood the parallel I was drawing.

Also, I think the fact that modern physics explains (very well even) 99.99pct of all physical phenomenon pretty much perfectly, says quite a bit.

Do you have any proof for these outlandish claims?

ahem. FE's don't even have a workable map for the southern hemiplane. FE'rs do not have any sort of coherent or testable hypotheses that are capable of explaining even the most basic of observable phenomenon, such as why the moon clearly has shadows when the object is supposed to be it's own independent lightsource, or why the UA is not equal across earth's surface.

But to answer your question about the validity of the Standard Model....
Yes, back when I took physics as an undergrad none of my experiments happened to fall outside of experimental error.
Even now, my experiments have yet to break some fundamental law of physics or not be consistent with well established mathematical formulae.

Please explain, when did the laws of physics, created by so many irreputable scientists, ever fail you?

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6758
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #10 on: May 03, 2010, 11:47:08 PM »
Physicists are actually attempting a unified theory...

I'm glad you understood the parallel I was drawing.

Also, I think the fact that modern physics explains (very well even) 99.99pct of all physical phenomenon pretty much perfectly, says quite a bit.

Do you have any proof for these outlandish claims?

ahem. FE's don't even have a workable map for the southern hemiplane. FE'rs do not have any sort of coherent or testable hypotheses that are capable of explaining even the most basic of observable phenomenon, such as why the moon clearly has shadows when the object is supposed to be it's own independent lightsource, or why the UA is not equal across earth's surface.

But to answer your question about the validity of the Standard Model....
Yes, back when I took physics as an undergrad none of my experiments happened to fall outside of experimental error.
Even now, my experiments have yet to break some fundamental law of physics or not be consistent with well established mathematical formulae.

Please explain, when did the laws of physics, created by so many irreputable scientists, ever fail you?

So, no proof then?

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #11 on: May 03, 2010, 11:50:45 PM »
Physicists are actually attempting a unified theory...

I'm glad you understood the parallel I was drawing.

Also, I think the fact that modern physics explains (very well even) 99.99pct of all physical phenomenon pretty much perfectly, says quite a bit.

Do you have any proof for these outlandish claims?

ahem. FE's don't even have a workable map for the southern hemiplane. FE'rs do not have any sort of coherent or testable hypotheses that are capable of explaining even the most basic of observable phenomenon, such as why the moon clearly has shadows when the object is supposed to be it's own independent lightsource, or why the UA is not equal across earth's surface.

But to answer your question about the validity of the Standard Model....
Yes, back when I took physics as an undergrad none of my experiments happened to fall outside of experimental error.
Even now, my experiments have yet to break some fundamental law of physics or not be consistent with well established mathematical formulae.

Please explain, when did the laws of physics, created by so many irreputable scientists, ever fail you?

So, no proof then?

Once again,
Please explain, when did the laws of physics, created by so many irreputable scientists, ever fail you? If such an occurrence happened, then we should be able to pretty easily demonstrate that the accepted Standard Model is broken.

If you can't come up with an example, then obviously my statement regarding the validity of modern physics holds true, as I have already proven that under no circumstances have I found something to be out of line with established textbook physics. That hardly counts as absence of proof!
« Last Edit: May 04, 2010, 12:09:09 AM by Deceiver »

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6758
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #12 on: May 04, 2010, 12:12:44 AM »
A working definition of gravity.

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #13 on: May 04, 2010, 12:24:24 AM »
A working definition of gravity.

... it's the mutual attraction between two or more objects. It's directly proportional to mass and can be calculated with accuracy to over well over 6 decimal places using modern equipment. It's particularly useful for mineral discovery and extraction.


Physics doesn't explicitly give us definitions. You should know this. It's about quantifying relationships. Generally, definitions arise only by relating these relationships. You may as well ask what I mean by saying something is to my left. It can only be described by relationships. Gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces, these are as basic as you get... no more meaning can be taken from them just as no more meaning can be extracted from 'it'. You can break a sentence down into it's individual words, but at some point, you'll hit a point where you can't even describe the most basic word you're trying to define.


« Last Edit: May 04, 2010, 12:42:43 AM by Deceiver »

*

Lorddave

  • 18282
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #14 on: May 04, 2010, 05:23:01 AM »
A working definition of gravity.

If you're going to go with that, which was given BTW, then I want you to give a working definition of the UA, a working model of the UA, and some equations to predict it's effects.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42687
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #15 on: May 04, 2010, 06:23:39 AM »
Also, I think the fact that modern physics explains (very well even) 99.99pct of all physical phenomenon pretty much perfectly, says quite a bit.

Do you have any proof for these outlandish claims?

If modern physics couldn't explain physical phenomena pretty well, then we wouldn't be able to have this conversation because the ability to fabricate integrated circuits with nanometer scale features wouldn't exist.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Xerox

  • 151
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2010, 07:46:30 AM »
Interesting how there has been no response from the usual FE crowd...

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #17 on: May 04, 2010, 08:46:31 AM »
I would like to see a unified FET, so as to actually give this society a smidge of actual respect and would help promote FES ideas in general.

Would it be possible for the FES to hammer a single unified FES? Or is the conflicting ideas and the various pull-it-out-of-your-ass explainations top hard to put together?

Surely a good step in this society's rule is to get a unified theory and then work from there to incorporate more explainations and ideas to explain the various scientific data that the society has fallen flat on its face to explain.

I would like to see a unified theory of physics, so as to actually give physicists a smidgen of actual respect and would help promote physics ideas in general.

Would it be possible for the physicists to hammer a single unified theory of physics? Or is the conflicting ideas and the various pull-it-out-of-your-ass explanations top hard to put together?

Surely a good step in the physicists rule is to get a unified theory and then work from there to incorporate more explanations and ideas to explain the various scientific data that the physicists has fallen flat on their faces to explain.



PS: I corrected your spelling, but left your atrocious grammar intact.

Physics is a good working theory: it holds countless repeatable experiments and laws that are applicable to technology and culture. FES in addition to doing none of these as well as Physics, holds theories which quickly become obsolete and disproven easily. When theories in modern physics are disproven, they are usually modified, or made more accurate. For example Newton’s equation F=MA. Although in reality it is not completely correct, it is good for approximations. Now that we have the whole E=mc^2 thing, it has been changed to F=dp/dt where p=ymv . When objects are at relatively low speeds, such as cars and birds, then gamma is nearly 1 and F=ma can be used.

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #18 on: May 04, 2010, 11:16:14 AM »
Trading in gravity for the UA hardly seems a better alternative. Mathematically, Gravity and it's derivation is consistent with our observations on earth. The UA, on the other hand, fails horribly at explaining why different parts of the earth have different UA/gravity values. Or why a 'universal' accelerator ONLY affects solid objects directly in contact with the ground, regardless of composition or properties -- such as extremely viscous fluids -- but it can't affect any sort of object even a hundredth of an inch above the ground. But that's just at face value. A five page document would still be insufficient to explain all the problems with the UA in everyday, modern physics. If we expand our discussion beyond the immediate realm of the Flat Earth, it would take another twenty pages to list every contradiction.

If you're going to question every last fundamental concept or law that has been long established by the scientific community, then you have the same responsibility to your FE model. Not only should the FE model explain physical phenomenon just as well as the Standard Model, it should explain it better and explain new phenomenon that aren't explainable under the Standard Model. Observation => data => conclusions. We believe in a round earth because the observations and data support it overwhelmingly. At no point did scientists decide to assume that the earth is round when developing tectonic theory, seismic variations, isostacy, etc. The data and observations all came before such a conclusion. In most cases, we don't even consider the shape of the earth, but it just so happens that our observations and data support such a shape.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2010, 11:52:11 AM by Deceiver »

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #19 on: May 04, 2010, 12:30:00 PM »
The notion of simply mashing hypotheses together for the sake of having just a single point of view is a peculiarly globularist outlook (and a particularly bad one). Obviously one set of propositions is the actual truth, but we won't arrive at it by forcing together conflicting aspects of theory, we will arrive at it by scrutinizing the facts.

To that extent, the extent that we attempt to discover the actual truth, then yes, we are working on a unified theory of FET.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42687
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #20 on: May 04, 2010, 12:55:19 PM »
Of course simply mashing hypotheses never makes for good science (RE or FE).  However, different FET researchers don't seem to be able to agree on much of anything.  Is the FE an infinite plane or is it a finite disc?  Is the FE accelerating at 9.8m/s2, does it generate its own gravitational field or is it some combination of the two?  Are the sun and moon spheres or flat massice discs?  Is the moon illuminated by the sun or is it self luminous?  These are basic questions that must be properly investigated by FET researchers so that the truth can be revealed and a coherent FE model developed.

Currently, only the nature of the moon seems to be under discussion in the believer's forum.  And even then, it seems to be more speculation than actual research.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #21 on: May 04, 2010, 02:16:04 PM »
Yes it would be nice to have a ToE.  We don't yet.  Yes we would like to and that is the aim of science and our work.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

Lorddave

  • 18282
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #22 on: May 04, 2010, 04:26:51 PM »
Yes it would be nice to have a ToE.  We don't yet.  Yes we would like to and that is the aim of science and our work.

Then how can you debate it as fact if you don't know which is fact yet?
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #23 on: May 04, 2010, 04:33:27 PM »
Yes it would be nice to have a ToE.  We don't yet.  Yes we would like to and that is the aim of science and our work.

Then how can you debate it as fact if you don't know which is fact yet?
I don't quite follow you.  Science is based around knowing what you know is likely somehow incorrect and needs to be worked on.  A ToE would be the end of that.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

Lorddave

  • 18282
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #24 on: May 04, 2010, 04:34:50 PM »
Yes it would be nice to have a ToE.  We don't yet.  Yes we would like to and that is the aim of science and our work.

Then how can you debate it as fact if you don't know which is fact yet?
I don't quite follow you.  Science is based around knowing what you know is likely somehow incorrect and needs to be worked on.  A ToE would be the end of that.

Nevermind.
Should have looked up "ToE" first.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Unified FET
« Reply #25 on: May 04, 2010, 04:37:44 PM »
Yes it would be nice to have a ToE.  We don't yet.  Yes we would like to and that is the aim of science and our work.

Then how can you debate it as fact if you don't know which is fact yet?
I don't quite follow you.  Science is based around knowing what you know is likely somehow incorrect and needs to be worked on.  A ToE would be the end of that.

Nevermind.
Should have looked up "ToE" first.
No, my fault.  I'll be clearer next time.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

Re: Unified FET
« Reply #26 on: May 07, 2010, 09:10:31 AM »
My feeling it will be a while before there is a unified theory,
I for one am not a "flat earther" I am a round disc shaped earth believer. Just not spherical
And i dont believe in the anti moon, the moon shining its own light (its a dead lifeless rock)
I believe in antarctica as a continent. The sun being a floodlight.

I also do not spew hate like some FE's do. I try to have respect for all thoeries.