FET is a bad theory--so inconsistent

REers correctly argue that FET is inconsistent and that makes it a bad theory. Science expects and indeed condones competing theories. However, the competing theorists should quickly determine a bevy of experiments to determine which is right.

FET suffers from worse than unresolved competing theories. It's internally inconsistent.

One great example is Tom Bishop's wiki about the distance from the Earth to the Sun. He choses the latitude of 45^o, Any other latitude provides a different result.

Another great example would be excuses we hear about the "sinking ship" evidence. "Bendy light" and perspective conflict in trying to explain the evidence.

Next we keep seeing a substitution tactics. When we argue that an infinite FE can't have finite mass, John Davis invokes math of a perfectly flat disc. When we argue that model would mean that 'g' would not vary with altitude, as is observed, John Davis say the same model doesn't apply because the FE is perfectly flat.

A good model is internally and externally consistent. FET is not.

REers correctly argue that FET is inconsistent and that makes it a bad theory.

So in RET is gravity caused by subatomic puller particles, or bendy space?

Quote from: ClockTower on November 11, 2010, 11:48:12 AM

REers correctly argue that FET is inconsistent and that makes it a bad theory.

So in RET is gravity caused by subatomic puller particles, or bendy space?

Irrelevant.  This thread is about inconsistencies in FET, not RET.  Please try to stay on topic, will you?

Quote from: ClockTower on November 11, 2010, 11:48:12 AM

REers correctly argue that FET is inconsistent and that makes it a bad theory.

So in RET is gravity caused by subatomic puller particles, or bendy space?

I imagine that gravity is caused by the same mechanism in both FET and RET, or did you want FET to use magic again?

Irrelevant.  This thread is about inconsistencies in FET, not RET.

It's hypocritical to accuse FET of being inconsistent when RET is inconsistent in a number of areas.

Quote from: markjo on November 11, 2010, 12:18:33 PM

Irrelevant.  This thread is about inconsistencies in FET, not RET.

It's hypocritical to accuse FET of being inconsistent when RET is inconsistent in a number of areas.

Yes, it would be. So why not start a topic on that issue? Please include in the first post the 'number of areas' where RET is inconsistent.

Quote from: markjo on November 11, 2010, 12:18:33 PM

Irrelevant.  This thread is about inconsistencies in FET, not RET.

It's hypocritical to accuse FET of being inconsistent when RET is inconsistent in a number of areas.

There is no such thing as hypocrisy in science. Good theories survive and bad theories fall. If RET is inconsistent in the range of far galaxies and expansion of the universe, that doesn't mean that FET can get away with failing at easily made observations on Earth. Nobody here is saying RET is perfect, just that it makes much better predictions here on Earth. Since FET makes no predictions about the galaxy at large then I don't see how you can compare it to the area where RET currently has issues.

It's hypocritical to accuse FET of being inconsistent when RET is inconsistent in a number of areas.

It is absolutely not. If you want to complain about RE then go there - http://theroundearthsociety.net/

Quote from: markjo on November 11, 2010, 12:18:33 PM

Irrelevant.  This thread is about inconsistencies in FET, not RET.

It's hypocritical to accuse FET of being inconsistent when RET is inconsistent in a number of areas.

Discussing the hypocrisy of RE'ers is also irrelevant and off topic.  Again, this thread is about the inconsistency of FET, not RET.  FET is supposed to be the better theory, so therefore it should be more consistent than RET.  This does not appear to be the case.

Discussing the hypocrisy of RE'ers is also irrelevant and off topic.  Again, this thread is about the inconsistency of FET, not RET.  FET is supposed to be the better theory, so therefore it should be more consistent than RET.  This does not appear to be the case.

Lady Blount's trials on the Old Bedford Canal show that Flat Earth Theory is more consistent with reality than Round Earth Theory.

Quote from: markjo on November 11, 2010, 03:28:19 PM

Discussing the hypocrisy of RE'ers is also irrelevant and off topic.  Again, this thread is about the inconsistency of FET, not RET.  FET is supposed to be the better theory, so therefore it should be more consistent than RET.  This does not appear to be the case.

Lady Blount's trials on the Old Bedford Canal show that Flat Earth Theory is more consistent with reality than Round Earth Theory.

Please provide evidence of your outlandish claim. In particular, please produce the photograph she claims to have commissioned.

Also, we're talking about self-consistency. FET is not consistent with itself. Remember that even you can't produce consistently the distance from the Sun to the Earth over various latitudes.

FES cannot even tell us which set of theories we should be referring to. I asked in the past for a FES summary of theories (and basic reasioning of why this theory over the other contenders plus a short explaination of what it is), guess what? No answer!

Is it UA or gravity?
Infinate earth or not?
Bendy light, yes or no?
Explain primary and secondary waves in earth quakes.
Explain Corriellis effect.
An accurate FE map or of the several on the board, which one should we be using?
Provide a Sun light day night map (time zones).
Provide reasoning for Northen and Souther hemisphere seasons and constelations.
Dead recongning verses GPS verses stellar navigation, is there any evidence of inconsistancies?
Why has the FES never posted expiments or experimental results (Every FET is a work in progress)?

Quote from: markjo on November 11, 2010, 03:28:19 PM

Discussing the hypocrisy of RE'ers is also irrelevant and off topic.  Again, this thread is about the inconsistency of FET, not RET.  FET is supposed to be the better theory, so therefore it should be more consistent than RET.  This does not appear to be the case.

Lady Blount's trials on the Old Bedford Canal show that Flat Earth Theory is more consistent with reality than Round Earth Theory.

There have been many trials on that canal showing both sides and that it is inconclusive. Pick something more consistant.

Quote from: markjo on November 11, 2010, 03:28:19 PM

Discussing the hypocrisy of RE'ers is also irrelevant and off topic.  Again, this thread is about the inconsistency of FET, not RET.  FET is supposed to be the better theory, so therefore it should be more consistent than RET.  This does not appear to be the case.

Lady Blount's trials on the Old Bedford Canal show that Flat Earth Theory is more consistent with reality than Round Earth Theory.

However, your method of triangulating the distance to the sun does not give consistent results when observers are at different latitudes.

I thought ERTW's post in another topic was excellent and relevant here, so here it is again:

...
The funny thing is, to be serious FET would have to propose a model of how the Sun might move, and that model could be tested. For now there is no serious FET model so there is nothing to apply math to! Until then there is no FET to really disprove, more like FEC "flat earth concept". Because of this it is so easy for them to keep changing the position and size of everything. There is no real model, only bits and peices that don't fit together.

I thought ERTW's post in another topic was excellent and relevant here, so here it is again:

Quote from: ERTW on November 14, 2010, 04:45:43 AM

...
The funny thing is, to be serious FET would have to propose a model of how the Sun might move, and that model could be tested. For now there is no serious FET model so there is nothing to apply math to! Until then there is no FET to really disprove, more like FEC "flat earth concept". Because of this it is so easy for them to keep changing the position and size of everything. There is no real model, only bits and peices that don't fit together.

I agree, this response does summarise the FE position but I woulldn't even go as far to call it a concept. No predictions can be made. Not even day or night cycles.

Quote from: markjo on November 11, 2010, 12:18:33 PM

Irrelevant.  This thread is about inconsistencies in FET, not RET.

It's hypocritical to accuse FET of being inconsistent when RET is inconsistent in a number of areas.

Please explain with your hundreds of peer reviews from all over the globe, yes "globe", and explain in detail why RET is inconsistent..
I and millions of others have a hard time wondering why FET is the more accurate or consistent theory.

Even IF RET had some inconsistencies due to scientific flaws, it doesn't mean FET is the more logical theory by any means. You have the burden of proof, now get explaining.

Please explain with your hundreds of peer reviews from all over the globe, yes "globe", and explain in detail why RET is inconsistent.

RET cannot explain the results of the bedford canal experiments.

RET cannot tell me the mechanism for gravity.

RET cannot demonstrate the existence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy.

RET cannot tell me why the galaxies to spin as if they were solid disks.

RET cannot tell me whether the earth is hollow or not. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is hollow.

RET cannot decide whether the earth is physically growing or not. Some REers believe that the earth is physically growing.

RET cannot tell me how old the earth is. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is 6000 years old. Some believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Why cant RE'ers decide?

RET cannot decide whether the earth is geocentric or heliocentric. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is geocentric.

These are inconsistencies in the RET model in the same way that you guys pointing out minority FET beliefs (ie. first post of this thread) is an inconsistency in FET.

Quote

Please explain with your hundreds of peer reviews from all over the globe, yes "globe", and explain in detail why RET is inconsistent.

RET cannot explain the results of the bedford canal experiments.

RET cannot tell me the mechanism for gravity.

RET cannot demonstrate the existence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy.

RET cannot tell me why the galaxies to spin as if they were solid disks.

RET cannot tell me whether the earth is hollow or not. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is hollow.

RET cannot decide whether the earth is physically growing or not. Some REers believe that the earth is physically growing.

RET cannot tell me how old the earth is. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is 6000 years old. Some believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Why cant RE'ers decide?

RET cannot decide whether the earth is geocentric or heliocentric. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is geocentric.

These are inconsistencies in the RET model in the same way that you guys pointing out minority FET beliefs (ie. first post of this thread) is an inconsistency in FET.

We are discussing inconsistencies in FET here, why can't you understand that?

Quote

Please explain with your hundreds of peer reviews from all over the globe, yes "globe", and explain in detail why RET is inconsistent.

RET cannot explain the results of the bedford canal experiments.

Atmospheric refractive phenomena are a very likely explanation for the results of the Bedford Canal experiments.

RET cannot tell me the mechanism for gravity.

And FET can't tell me the mechanism for the UA, so we're even.

RET cannot demonstrate the existence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy.

Actually, it can.  http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMZ6GSVYVE_index_0.html

RET cannot tell me why the galaxies to spin as if they were solid disks.

Dark matter.

RET cannot tell me whether the earth is hollow or not. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is hollow.

Seismic surveys say that the earth is not hollow.  If you can find some evidence to support Hollow Earth theory, then feel free to let us know.

RET cannot decide whether the earth is physically growing or not. Some REers believe that the earth is physically growing.

Actually, the earth is physically growing by an average of about one ton of space debris entering the atmosphere per day.

RET cannot tell me how old the earth is. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is 6000 years old. Some believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Why cant RE'ers decide?

The prevailing theory is 4.5 billion years.  When you find some evidence to support Young Earth Creationism, feel free to let us know.

RET cannot decide whether the earth is geocentric or heliocentric. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is geocentric.

Since a number of space probes have explored the solar system, I'd say that heliocentric would be a pretty safe bet. 

These are inconsistencies in the RET model in the same way that you guys pointing out minority FET beliefs (ie. first post of this thread) is an inconsistency in FET.

Tom, you do realize that all of the fringe RET theories you pointed out have far more consistent models than FET does, don't you?  At least all of those fringe RE theories can explain sunrises and sunsets without resorting to tricks of perspective or bendy light.

RET cannot explain the results of the bedford canal experiments.

 Yes, it is explained. And it is only point that has something to do with the round earth.

RET cannot tell me the mechanism for gravity.

RET cannot demonstrate the existence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy.

RET cannot tell me why the galaxies to spin as if they were solid disks.

RET cannot tell me whether the earth is hollow or not. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is hollow.

RET cannot decide whether the earth is physically growing or not. Some REers believe that the earth is physically growing.

RET cannot tell me how old the earth is. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is 6000 years old. Some believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Why cant RE'ers decide?

 These have absolutely nothing to do with the Earth shape. And FE won't have these answers either. Try to find something to pick which FE has conclusively decided and RE has not.

RET cannot decide whether the earth is geocentric or heliocentric. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is geocentric.

  It's decided that it is heliocentric. What some eccentric persons choose to believe isn't again nothing to do with the RE.
So, all your points are just futile attempts.

This thread has started as a debate with the inconsistences of FE, Tom Bishop is derailing and changing the viewpoint to make everyone talk about the "inconsistences" of the RE, please, do not fall for that and stay on topic.
It's a nice distracting method, and Tom is good at it, cuz they cannot counter argument the FE inconsistences

 Lets make it then concrete and start with the distance to the Sun and to the Moon. Can the FEers decide the method to measure the distance which gives consistent results and then really measure the distance?

Quote

Please explain with your hundreds of peer reviews from all over the globe, yes "globe", and explain in detail why RET is inconsistent.

RET cannot explain the results of the bedford canal experiments.

RET cannot tell me the mechanism for gravity.

RET cannot demonstrate the existence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy.

RET cannot tell me why the galaxies to spin as if they were solid disks.

RET cannot tell me whether the earth is hollow or not. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is hollow.

RET cannot decide whether the earth is physically growing or not. Some REers believe that the earth is physically growing.

RET cannot tell me how old the earth is. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is 6000 years old. Some believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Why cant RE'ers decide?

RET cannot decide whether the earth is geocentric or heliocentric. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is geocentric.

These are inconsistencies in the RET model in the same way that you guys pointing out minority FET beliefs (ie. first post of this thread) is an inconsistency in FET.

Round Earth can tell you the mechanism for gravity.  You're just mathematically illiterate and probably haven't even had Introductory Physics so you couldn't understand the proof.

I didn't know FET could explain dark energy and dark matter.  I'd really like to see that.

Again, Round Earth physics can explain galactic formation and motion, you're just scientifically/physically illiterate.

Round Earth can definitively give proof of the Earth's interior composition.

Round Earth clearly explains how old the Earth is according to science.  You're confusing science and religion, which makes me tend to believe that you might be educationally illiterate as well.

I'm just making the assumption that you're scientifically illiterate, so I forgive you for not being sure about these things.  If FET can make weird claims, I can make my own as well.  If you'd like to elaborate on your science education, I'd love to know.

I'm glad to see that after I've made some valid points that FET people can't dispute, they just move on to another discussion.  This thread is a victory for Round Earth.

I'm glad to see that after I've made some valid points that FET people can't dispute, they just move on to another discussion.  This thread is a victory for Round Earth.

Your above post isn't worth responding to.

LOL Tom, a quick search on the internet will tell you results of the Bedford Canal experiment. It will also tell you that since we've been able to travel into space the whole idea of the Bedford Canal was shot to shit because we were able to say once and for all the Earth is round.

RET cannot tell me why the galaxies to spin as if they were solid disks.

Tom has this one.  GO FET!

galazies do not spin like solid disks, or else we would not have spirals or arms.  the gravity of other stars pull other stars in, so to balance that, the stars spin to counteract the inward force.  thats what i read somewhere

Quote from: ClockTower on November 11, 2010, 11:48:12 AM

REers correctly argue that FET is inconsistent and that makes it a bad theory.

So in RET is gravity caused by subatomic puller particles, or bendy space?

Tom, don't be a dick, FET says gravity is caused by INIFINITE ACCELERATION!!!

FUCKING INFINITE ACCELERATION!!!