Moved from S&C to avoid thread "abuse" Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration

  • 2 Replies
  • 927 Views
*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Well, I've seen the posts on this forum that appear to contradict [EA], but as far as disproof, it hasn't happened, any more than (in RE Theory) the rate of expansion of the universe has disproved gravity.

EA predicts basic effects which should be visible from the surface of earth, by the exact same mechanism with which it supposedly distorts the position of the sun and moon. It should also cause distortions of star positions proportional to their altitude above the horizon. It is observed daily that these do not happen. Thats a pretty watertight disproof of the theory.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Again, I'm aware there are areas that may contradict the basics of EAT.  I'm sure you're aware equally that according to the RE Standard Model of the universe, the notion of gravity contradicts what we observe to be the accelerating expansion of the universe, to the effect that a whole unobserved class of energy was invented to explain it.  Just as REers claim that gravity seems to explain what we mostly observe on Earth, so does EAT in FET.  Overcoming obstacles like the ones you mention is all a part of developing a theory; they in no way disprove it.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Again, I'm aware there are areas that may contradict the basics of EAT.  I'm sure you're aware equally that according to the RE Standard Model of the universe, the notion of gravity contradicts what we observe to be the accelerating expansion of the universe, to the effect that a whole unobserved class of energy was invented to explain it.  Just as REers claim that gravity seems to explain what we mostly observe on Earth, so does EAT in FET.  Overcoming obstacles like the ones you mention is all a part of developing a theory; they in no way disprove it.

OK let me make an equivalent example: The theory of gravity states that every piece of matter is attracted to every other piece of matter by a force dependent on mass and distance. Now imagine that when you went out and observed the world, you saw that wood, stone, iron, rubber and bacon obeyed this law. But then you saw that aluminium, coffee and wax do not. It would be abundantly and immediately clear that the whole general notion of gravity as a multilateral attractive force was incorrect and needed severe modification or abandonment.
The EA equivalent is this: It states that all incoming light has its path deflected/bent by an amount proportional to its paths position on the axis between horizontal (massive deflection) and vertical (no deflection). When you go out and observe the world you see that the light from the sun and moon fits the predicted behaviour of bent light, but the light from the stars does not. It is now abundantly and immediately clear that the whole general notion of EA as a light-bending force is incorrect and needs severe modification or abandonment.

Now, the galactic expansion: because mainstream scientists do not want to abandon their dogma that gravity is constant and unvarying in all situations, when the observations of galactic expansion dont fit the predictions, they make up a ridiculous class of matter that is conveniently undetectable and invisible. This theory doesnt quite work by itself so they make up an even sillier type of conveniently undetectable energy to power it. Whereas all this unscientific guesswork could be avoided by positing the notion that gravity is not as unvarying as previously thought. But since that would mean rethinking how gravity works they are afraid to even try it. This is not scientific.

But when it is pointed out that EA doesnt fit the observations, do the flattists propose modifications or changes to the theory? No. I get "No, it hasn't been disproved", "you are wrong", "how do you know if you didnt do the measurements yourself" and "ur a towel". This is exactly like mainstream scientists refusing to even consider that their precious theory of gravity might need to be changed. Refusal to address the shortcomings of EA is not helpful to the theory. The EA theory, as it stands, cannot be correct. Flattists need to say "OK, the facts dont fit the predictions, lets see what might cause this to be the case" rather than the point blank refusal to accept that the observations dont fit the predictions. Thats like mainstream scientists refusing to accept that galactic expansion doesnt match predictions. At least dark matter theory, silly and clunky though it is, acknowledges the facts of observation.

Sure, gravity as we know it might be wrong, OR it might be correct and dark matter could be responsible for what we see. What is undoubtable is that current EA theory is observably incorrect and the FES have not provided an excuse of "flat matter" (for want of a better term) to explain the difference between what is seen and what is predicted. Until that time comes, or a modified EA theory is presented to account for the discrepancy, EA should be considered disproved. Just as the current theory of gravity would be disproved if dark matter could be shown not to exist. Thats the scientific way to look at the world.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.