The movement of the Sun.

The anti-moon is a result of neozetetic revelation, as is most of my work.  It eliminates the need for any hypothesis or theory to even be involved.  However you are correct in the important sense and I need to review my work for its "theoretical" basis, especially the anti-moon.

How exactly is the existence of an anti-moon not a hypothesis?

According the the Flat earth FAQ, the sun moves around the earth lighting up specific areas of the surface at different times.  The sun is being held up by dark energy (at least so far no one has corrected me on that one in my other thread), and FE has no explanation of what powers the sun. 

My question is, what generates the horizontal movement of the sun into a regular repeated pattern? 

According the the Flat earth FAQ, the sun moves around the earth lighting up specific areas of the surface at different times.  The sun is being held up by dark energy (at least so far no one has corrected me on that one in my other thread), and FE has no explanation of what powers the sun. 

My question is, what generates the horizontal movement of the sun into a regular repeated pattern? 

The conspiracy does it.

Quote from: Harutsedo on May 22, 2011, 05:43:45 PM

Quote

A scientician, an unreasonable person, would imagine that "sub-atomic gravitons/black matter/magnetic photons/higs-bosons did it."

Unless evidence points towards ""sub-atomic gravitons/black matter/magnetic photons/higs-bosons". Quit making real scientists out to be lunatics.

Scienticians are notorious for using liberal amounts of fantasy in their dogma. One needs to look no further than gravity. Many scienticians believe that gravity is caused by a sub-atomic particle called the Graviton. No one has ever seen or detected a graviton, and there is a stunningly zero evidence for their existence, yet scienticians continue to go on and believe that gravitons are the cause for gravity.

no, that's just one theory for it, it hasn't been proved yet so it's not accepted as fact

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 22, 2011, 11:06:28 PM

Quote from: Harutsedo on May 22, 2011, 05:43:45 PM

Quote

A scientician, an unreasonable person, would imagine that "sub-atomic gravitons/black matter/magnetic photons/higs-bosons did it."

Unless evidence points towards ""sub-atomic gravitons/black matter/magnetic photons/higs-bosons". Quit making real scientists out to be lunatics.

Scienticians are notorious for using liberal amounts of fantasy in their dogma. One needs to look no further than gravity. Many scienticians believe that gravity is caused by a sub-atomic particle called the Graviton. No one has ever seen or detected a graviton, and there is a stunningly zero evidence for their existence, yet scienticians continue to go on and believe that gravitons are the cause for gravity.

no, that's just one theory for it, it hasn't been proved yet so it's not accepted as fact

You seem to be making a plethora of low-content posts.

RE scientists can't explain gravity, why do we have to?

RE scientists can't explain gravity, why do we have to?

RE scientists have several models that explain gravity quite nicely. 

I think the biggest flaw in the line of Zetetic, empiricist reasoning is the idea that you need to see something to believe it exists. I've never seen Tom Bishop's brain, and neither has he. Who is he to tell me (or anyone, for that matter) that I'm wrong about something if he doesn't even believe he has a brain?...

Although, interestingly, Tom does not always need to see to believe. His thoughts on air:

"I've seen air. I can see it build up in the distance. I can see it on a foggy day. I can feel it fill my lungs when I breathe, and I can feel it blow against my face at the beach. There is plenty of empirical evidence for the existence of air."

As we can see here, only half of his observations involve seeing anything at all. It seems reasonable to conclude that other senses apart from sight are Zetetically valid. And perhaps even reasonable inferences could be made! But that's dangerous territory for FET.

Correct, you need to see or detect it for it to be empirically valid.

For the comment that I don't believe that I have a brain because I have not seen it, this is incorrect. I have seen empirical evidence for the existence of brains, therefore I can say that I have a brain.

- I've seen autopsies of the human skull.
- I've seen that human skulls contain brains.
- I am a human.
- Therefore I have a brain.

How do you know that all humans have brains? Have you checked every single one, including yourself?

How do you know that all humans have brains? Have you checked every single one, including yourself?

I don't need to. There is enough experimental and observational evidence that humans have brains that the idea that humans have brains is empirical.

How do we really now he is human?


I think its time to bring in Thörk's lizard people back into context.


Berny
One of the better threads cut short by the real conspiracy

Quote from: IOA on June 17, 2011, 03:42:31 PM

Have you checked every single one, including yourself?

I don't need to.

Oh? But I need to check every single object on Earth (including Bananas) for gravity before you consider it something universal?

Do we have some sort of double standard here?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 17, 2011, 03:49:19 PM

Quote from: IOA on June 17, 2011, 03:42:31 PM

Have you checked every single one, including yourself?

I don't need to.

Oh? But I need to check every single object on Earth (including Bananas) for gravity before you consider it something universal?

Do we have some sort of double standard here?

I don't recall saying that.

Quote from: IOA on June 17, 2011, 03:42:31 PM

How do you know that all humans have brains? Have you checked every single one, including yourself?

I don't need to. There is enough experimental and observational evidence that things fall toward the earth that the idea of a gravitational force is empirical.

Hmm, that's true...once again I am forced to agree with you, Tom.

I don't recall saying that.

Ah, okay. Well then, gravity exists. Cavendish experiment.

Correct, you need to see or detect it for it to be empirically valid.

For the comment that I don't believe that I have a brain because I have not seen it, this is incorrect. I have seen empirical evidence for the existence of brains, therefore I can say that I have a brain.

- I've seen autopsies of the human skull.
- I've seen that human skulls contain brains.
- I am a human.
- Therefore I have a brain.

• I have seen round planets in the sky
• Earth is a planet
• Therefore Earth is round

Any arguments?

The Earth is not a planet.

The Earth is not a planet.

Wikipedia begs otherwise.

Earth (or the Earth) is the third planet from the Sun and the densest and fifth-largest of the eight planets in the Solar System. It is also the largest of the Solar System's four terrestrial planets. It is sometimes referred to as the World, the Blue Planet,[20] or by its Latin name, Terra.

Berny
Wikipedia.  Yeah

Wikipedia is so confused.

From:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet

Definition of planet    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since the word was coined by the ancient Greeks, the definition of planet has comprised many different things, often simultaneously. Over the millennia, use of the term was never strict and its meaning has blurred to include or exclude a variety of different objects, from the Sun and the Moon to satellites and asteroids.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 17, 2011, 07:34:33 PM

The Earth is not a planet.

Wikipedia begs otherwise.

Quote

Earth (or the Earth) is the third planet from the Sun and the densest and fifth-largest of the eight planets in the Solar System. It is also the largest of the Solar System's four terrestrial planets. It is sometimes referred to as the World, the Blue Planet,[20] or by its Latin name, Terra.

Berny
Wikipedia.  Yeah

I'm sure you recognize that Wikipedia's cosmology differs greatly from FE cosmology.

Wikipedia is so confused.

From:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet

Definition of planet    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since the word was coined by the ancient Greeks, the definition of planet has comprised many different things, often simultaneously. Over the millennia, use of the term was never strict and its meaning has blurred to include or exclude a variety of different objects, from the Sun and the Moon to satellites and asteroids.

From the same article:

This definition, which applies only to the Solar System, states that a planet is a body that orbits the Sun, is massive enough for its own gravity to make it round, and has "cleared its neighbourhood" of smaller objects around its orbit.

And the Earth is Round.  So Earth is a planet!

I'm sure you recognize that Wikipedia's cosmology differs greatly from FE cosmology.

True - but like Highlander - there can only be one.


Berny
Awaits the swinging of swords

...
And the Earth is Round.  So Earth is a planet!

...

It was right about here that you went off the rails.

The Flat Earth is not a planet.

Fixed.

The Earth is not a planet.

Tom is not a human.

We can play this game all day.

The Sun remains in motion due to its inertia. Its curved path is caused by its interaction with the Earth's magnetic field, much like an electron moves in a circle in the presence of a uniform magnetic field.

The Sun remains in motion due to its inertia. Its curved path is caused by its interaction with the Earth's magnetic field, much like an electron moves in a circle in the presence of a uniform magnetic field.

Since when does an electron move in a circle in the presence of a uniform magnetic field?

By inference, about 12 billion years ago.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 17, 2011, 08:32:28 PM

The Sun remains in motion due to its inertia. Its curved path is caused by its interaction with the Earth's magnetic field, much like an electron moves in a circle in the presence of a uniform magnetic field.

Since when does an electron move in a circle in the presence of a uniform magnetic field?

If an electron is moving along the x-axis and a uniform magnetic field is directed along the z-axis, then the force applied to the electron between these interactions is directed along the y-axis. This is at the instant that the electron is moving along the x-axis though. As it turns, the force applied is always perpendicular to it so it continues to turn in a circular fashion.

FYI, this theory I would find much more believable than celestial gears. Also if you could find an alternate theory to the absurd UA curving around the Earth to keep the celestial objects lifted, I'd appreciate it.

Stupid bothers me.

FYI, this theory I would find much more believable than celestial gears.

I don't see the relevance. They are not alternatives; they describe entirely different phenomena.