FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun

  • 120 Replies
  • 10903 Views
?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #90 on: August 09, 2010, 04:15:07 PM »
I tell you what, I'll bring the equipment, data, and results to Rock City at a date of your choosing.  We can repeat it then.  I used to know some of the management there, I'll see if I can arrange a private area to perform our experiments.

Bringing data and results to the site of an experiment is not usually considered to be the scientific method.

I can only take from your fumbling replies that you have not performed this experiment, and therefore have no easily repeatable tests to show the earth is an infinite plane.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15829
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #91 on: August 09, 2010, 04:16:55 PM »
I tell you what, I'll bring the equipment, data, and results to Rock City at a date of your choosing.  We can repeat it then.  I used to know some of the management there, I'll see if I can arrange a private area to perform our experiments.

Bringing data and results to the site of an experiment is not usually considered to be the scientific method.

I can only take from your fumbling replies that you have not performed this experiment, and therefore have no easily repeatable tests to show the earth is an infinite plane.
I can only conclude that you know you are wrong and don't wish to test your beliefs.

The experiment as you can tell is quite simple and you can review it, and the equipment over lunch. 

Likely though, you are just trolling and have no interest in repeating this experiment or showing your view to be correct.  If this is not the case, I will see you there.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 04:18:46 PM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #92 on: August 09, 2010, 04:19:36 PM »
I tell you what, I'll bring the equipment, data, and results to Rock City at a date of your choosing.  We can repeat it then.  I used to know some of the management there, I'll see if I can arrange a private area to perform our experiments.

Bringing data and results to the site of an experiment is not usually considered to be the scientific method.

I can only take from your fumbling replies that you have not performed this experiment, and therefore have no easily repeatable tests to show the earth is an infinite plane.
I can only conclude that you know you are wrong and don't wish to test your beliefs.
Again you can't provide VOE to support your claim. How sad.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #93 on: August 09, 2010, 04:23:42 PM »
The experiment as you can tell is quite simple and you can review it, and the equipment over lunch. 

Naming a place != detailing an experiment.

Please tell us what equipment you used, how you used it, where you used it, what data you recorded, what conclusions you drew, and what permitted you to draw those conclusions.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15829
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #94 on: August 10, 2010, 10:32:58 PM »
I tell you what, I'll bring the equipment, data, and results to Rock City at a date of your choosing.  We can repeat it then.  I used to know some of the management there, I'll see if I can arrange a private area to perform our experiments.

Bringing data and results to the site of an experiment is not usually considered to be the scientific method.

I can only take from your fumbling replies that you have not performed this experiment, and therefore have no easily repeatable tests to show the earth is an infinite plane.
I can only conclude that you know you are wrong and don't wish to test your beliefs.

The experiment as you can tell is quite simple and you can review it, and the equipment over lunch. 

Likely though, you are just trolling and have no interest in repeating this experiment or showing your view to be correct.  If this is not the case, I will see you there.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #95 on: August 11, 2010, 11:59:07 AM »
Naming a place != detailing an experiment.

Please tell us what equipment you used, how you used it, where you used it, what data you recorded, what conclusions you drew, and what permitted you to draw those conclusions.

Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #96 on: August 11, 2010, 12:39:56 PM »
Are you stubborn?

Yeah, because everybody lives in TN, USA. Good thinking. Id love to come but I think its not worth the thousands of dollars that this journey would cost me. Instead, I would like some detail, too, so I could do the very same thing at home. In Europe.
English is not my mother tongue, please consider this when reading my posts.
Quote from: anteater7171
Quote
Why is australia excluded?
Because it is a lie propagated by the conspiracy (like gravity or sustained spaceflight).
I lived a lie

Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #97 on: August 11, 2010, 12:42:35 PM »
I tell you what, I'll bring the equipment, data, and results to Rock City at a date of your choosing.  We can repeat it then.  I used to know some of the management there, I'll see if I can arrange a private area to perform our experiments.

Bringing data and results to the site of an experiment is not usually considered to be the scientific method.

I can only take from your fumbling replies that you have not performed this experiment, and therefore have no easily repeatable tests to show the earth is an infinite plane.
I can only conclude that you know you are wrong and don't wish to test your beliefs.

The experiment as you can tell is quite simple and you can review it, and the equipment over lunch. 

Likely though, you are just trolling and have no interest in repeating this experiment or showing your view to be correct.  If this is not the case, I will see you there.
I'm sure that if John Davis had verifiable objective evidence that he'd published it. Until then, we cannot believe his lackluster claims. Science doesn't need challenges like this. Publish the data. Take credit for your effort. Substantiate your conclusions. --Or go home.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #98 on: August 11, 2010, 01:42:05 PM »
looks like he went home!   an infinite plane!? are you serious? what controls the weather  patterns of this infinite plane? also what mechanisn enables a infinate plane to generate an infinite magnetic field. does this infinite plane rotate. it has been proven that the earths magnetic field has reversed many times in the past. if the earth is flat, how can this happen?! do u think that the infinite plane is natural or created?!


 How do you explain Eclipses, half moons, full moons, and things of the sort?

Sky magic. One might very well ask "what is an egg yolk?"

 
You can't exceed the speed of ligh

Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #99 on: August 11, 2010, 01:51:54 PM »
looks like he went home!   an infinite plane!? are you serious? what controls the weather  patterns of this infinite plane? also what mechanisn enables a infinate plane to generate an infinite magnetic field. does this infinite plane rotate. it has been proven that the earths magnetic field has reversed many times in the past. if the earth is flat, how can this happen?! do u think that the infinite plane is natural or created?!
John Davis does a very poor job of describing or defending his model, so I can't fully answer your questions of me. I will say that he believes in an infinite surface area on the top side of the FE. He ignores the Laws of Thermodynamics (How does the known area stay warm when there's an infinite mass to conduct away its heat?) and the nature of the atmosphere (How does the composition of the solution of air change if its infinite? If not, then way hold it in?) I agree that John Davis cannot address your concerns about magnetism with his model either. John Davis does argue that there is a South Pole, but he can't seem to consistently describe it or place it on a map. Perhaps he guesses that magnetism is restricted to just the known area of the infinite FE. As far I know, he does not believe that the FE rotates or accelerates in any way.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #100 on: August 12, 2010, 02:44:28 AM »
He ignores the Laws of Thermodynamics (How does the known area stay warm when there's an infinite mass to conduct away its heat?) and the nature of the atmosphere (How does the composition of the solution of air change if its infinite? If not, then way hold it in?)

I totaly agree with you that for a number of physical reasons an (infinite) flat Earth is very unlikely, but the above argument is nonsense. The ratio of mass to surface area is not so drastically different for his infinite flat Earth than it is for a spherical Earth, and therefore both models should cool more or less at the same rate...
Quote from: Username
Horentius is correct.

Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #101 on: August 12, 2010, 07:11:45 AM »
He ignores the Laws of Thermodynamics (How does the known area stay warm when there's an infinite mass to conduct away its heat?) and the nature of the atmosphere (How does the composition of the solution of air change if its infinite? If not, then way hold it in?)

I totaly agree with you that for a number of physical reasons an (infinite) flat Earth is very unlikely, but the above argument is nonsense. The ratio of mass to surface area is not so drastically different for his infinite flat Earth than it is for a spherical Earth, and therefore both models should cool more or less at the same rate...
I suggest that you didn't consider cooling of the known area by conduction to the infinite unknown area.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #102 on: August 12, 2010, 07:24:26 AM »
I suggest that you didn't consider cooling of the known area by conduction to the infinite unknown area.

Not relevant. Space is more or less infinite in all directions, and you don't need conduction to cool. And who said that the whole plane can't have the same temperature roughly? In that case there is no net heat transport horizontally...
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 07:31:42 AM by Hortensius »
Quote from: Username
Horentius is correct.

Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #103 on: August 12, 2010, 07:42:22 AM »
I suggest that you didn't consider cooling of the known area by conduction to the infinite unknown area.

Not relevant. Space is more or less infinite in all directions, and you don't need conduction to cool. And who said that the whole plane can't have the same temperature roughly? In that case there is no net heat transport horizontally...
You'll need to explain to me why there can't be radiation of heat vertically into space. How would the infinite FE maintain that same temperature without an infinite number of Suns?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #104 on: August 12, 2010, 07:46:25 AM »
I suggest that you didn't consider cooling of the known area by conduction to the infinite unknown area.

Not relevant. Space is more or less infinite in all directions, and you don't need conduction to cool. And who said that the whole plane can't have the same temperature roughly? In that case there is no net heat transport horizontally...
You'll need to explain to me why there can't be radiation of heat vertically into space. How would the infinite FE maintain that same temperature without an infinite number of Suns?

There can be vertical radiation of heat ofcourse, and this is how the Earth, flat or spherical, cools. And if you're talking about the temperature of the Earth mass (so I'm not talking about the atmosphere) the Sun has virtually no influence on that.
Quote from: Username
Horentius is correct.

Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #105 on: August 12, 2010, 07:58:07 AM »
I suggest that you didn't consider cooling of the known area by conduction to the infinite unknown area.

Not relevant. Space is more or less infinite in all directions, and you don't need conduction to cool. And who said that the whole plane can't have the same temperature roughly? In that case there is no net heat transport horizontally...
You'll need to explain to me why there can't be radiation of heat vertically into space. How would the infinite FE maintain that same temperature without an infinite number of Suns?

There can be vertical radiation of heat ofcourse, and this is how the Earth, flat or spherical, cools. And if you're talking about the temperature of the Earth mass (so I'm not talking about the atmosphere) the Sun has virtually no influence on that.
Interesting. Are you suggesting that radioactive decay of the FE maintains the FE's mass's temperature? I had not considered that.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #106 on: August 12, 2010, 08:06:48 AM »
Interesting. Are you suggesting that radioactive decay of the FE maintains the FE's mass's temperature? I had not considered that.

Are you suggesting that it does not on a RE?

Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #107 on: August 12, 2010, 08:10:32 AM »
Interesting. Are you suggesting that radioactive decay of the FE maintains the FE's mass's temperature? I had not considered that.

Are you suggesting that it does not on a RE?
No. Why would you ask?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #108 on: August 12, 2010, 08:13:21 AM »
Interesting. Are you suggesting that radioactive decay of the FE maintains the FE's mass's temperature? I had not considered that.

Who was talking about a heat source? What causes the non-zero temperature of the Earth is completely irrelevant for this discussion. The question was about how and how fast the Earth cools given its shape. And my point was and is that the Sun does not provide a significant amount of heat for the mass of the Earth, whether it is flat or spherical.
Quote from: Username
Horentius is correct.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #109 on: August 12, 2010, 08:13:26 AM »
Interesting. Are you suggesting that radioactive decay of the FE maintains the FE's mass's temperature? I had not considered that.

Are you suggesting that it does not on a RE?
No. Why would you ask?

Just to make sure you wikied it before continuing to make a fool out of yourself.

Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #110 on: August 12, 2010, 08:24:18 AM »
Interesting. Are you suggesting that radioactive decay of the FE maintains the FE's mass's temperature? I had not considered that.

Are you suggesting that it does not on a RE?
No. Why would you ask?

Just to make sure you wikied it before continuing to make a fool out of yourself.
What Wiki answers the question about the heat source for the Earth's mass?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #111 on: August 12, 2010, 10:21:51 AM »
Interesting. Are you suggesting that radioactive decay of the FE maintains the FE's mass's temperature? I had not considered that.

Are you suggesting that it does not on a RE?
No. Why would you ask?

Just to make sure you wikied it before continuing to make a fool out of yourself.
What Wiki answers the question about the heat source for the Earth's mass?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient#Heat_sources

Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #112 on: August 12, 2010, 10:28:46 AM »
Interesting. Are you suggesting that radioactive decay of the FE maintains the FE's mass's temperature? I had not considered that.

Are you suggesting that it does not on a RE?
No. Why would you ask?

Just to make sure you wikied it before continuing to make a fool out of yourself.
What Wiki answers the question about the heat source for the Earth's mass?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient#Heat_sources
Are you saying that source is accurate and that the Earth is a sphere?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #113 on: August 12, 2010, 10:50:05 AM »
Are you saying that source is accurate and that the Earth is a sphere?

Interesting. Are you suggesting that radioactive decay of the FE maintains the FE's mass's temperature? I had not considered that.

Are you suggesting that it does not on a RE?

You'll have to try harder than that, champ.  ;)

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #114 on: August 12, 2010, 10:52:12 AM »
You'll have to try harder than that, champ.  ;)

Wow. You just failed.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #115 on: August 12, 2010, 10:53:46 AM »
You'll have to try harder than that, champ.  ;)

Wow. You just failed.

Could you please elaborate?

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #116 on: August 12, 2010, 11:06:17 AM »
You'll have to try harder than that, champ.  ;)

Wow. You just failed.

Could you please elaborate?

Sure. Your failure was initialised Today at 10:50:05. Cause was catastrophic backpedalling and weaseling. Please no flowers.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #117 on: August 13, 2010, 06:33:22 AM »
While we discuss the thermodynamics of a theoretical infinite plane, we should not forget that the real astounding failure this hypothesis has is that the Sun, stars and other celestial objects are just not in the right place. A hypothesis that really fails to predict that the stars appear to rotate around two points in space corresponding to the North and South poles is not worth too much elaboration. And we could and have talked for days about the whole list of errors that this hypothesis has with regards to the placement, brightness and apparent size of the celestial objects.

Anyway, you would have to have an infinite amount of mass just appearing from nowhere in a perfect plane to have this hypothesis work. Thermodynamics, gravitation, plate tectonics or anything else that disturbs the perfect initial plane will create an imperfection big enough to start the crumbling of the infinite plane into pieces that, with the help of gravity, will attract other pieces and in no time the perfect infinite plane will become, (you guessed it) a bunch of spherical planets and stars.

Remember, at planetary scales the solid objects do not have the consistency of steel, they rather have the consistency of wet clay.

Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #118 on: August 13, 2010, 07:27:37 AM »
While we discuss the thermodynamics of a theoretical infinite plane, we should not forget that the real astounding failure this hypothesis has is that the Sun, stars and other celestial objects are just not in the right place. A hypothesis that really fails to predict that the stars appear to rotate around two points in space corresponding to the North and South poles is not worth too much elaboration. And we could and have talked for days about the whole list of errors that this hypothesis has with regards to the placement, brightness and apparent size of the celestial objects.

Anyway, you would have to have an infinite amount of mass just appearing from nowhere in a perfect plane to have this hypothesis work. Thermodynamics, gravitation, plate tectonics or anything else that disturbs the perfect initial plane will create an imperfection big enough to start the crumbling of the infinite plane into pieces that, with the help of gravity, will attract other pieces and in no time the perfect infinite plane will become, (you guessed it) a bunch of spherical planets and stars.

Remember, at planetary scales the solid objects do not have the consistency of steel, they rather have the consistency of wet clay.

But the cake, I mean gravity, is a lie!
English is not my mother tongue, please consider this when reading my posts.
Quote from: anteater7171
Quote
Why is australia excluded?
Because it is a lie propagated by the conspiracy (like gravity or sustained spaceflight).
I lived a lie

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
« Reply #119 on: August 13, 2010, 09:10:46 AM »
But the cake, I mean gravity, is a lie!
You have to discuss both contradicting hypothesis at the same time. When you try to show the absurdity of UA you suddenly get the visit of John Davis saying gravity exists, and then you show the absurdity of an infinite plane and get several FE theorists fighting for UA all over again.

If you are not careful, you will get into the "who said what" endless discussions and you will get called names because it is easier to play you against the other FE "theorists" than to show a complete, verifiable hypothesis.