The Credibility of FET Science

I was here a while ago debating astrophysics and some other concepts, and I've returned to see the state of the argument.  What I present now is not an argument for RET or specifically against FET.  In fact, I am actually here to present some advice for FET supporters.

As it is now, it is convenient for FET supporters to stick around here, post their "proof" and debate with the folks of the internet.  The problem is that as it is now, you will never be able to leave home base with your arguments, because none of them are based in real science.  I'm not saying this to shoot down all of the work you've done, but looking at some of your major ideas, you lack the mathematical rigor to prove it.  Take "bendy light" for example.  It doesn't really matter if light rays actually bend or if bendy light is a product of atmospheric distortion.  For your ideas to be taken seriously, you need to leave the realm of thought and build the math to prove it.  A simple diagram made in MS paint isn't going to prove anything.  You're going to need the reflection and refraction matrices to show what is actually happening to the light.  You're going to need Fermat's Principle to show why this is the most preferential solution.  Also, you need to accept the fact that you can't disregard "RET" physics simply because it may shatter your ideas, especially if you can't provide the mathematics and experimentation to disprove it.

From what I see here, none of the major flat earth proponents are physicists and scientists at all, which is unfortunately what you will need to get your point across to the masses.  If, one day, an armada of physicists landed on your site and produced the mathematics to prove you wrong, you wouldn't be able to refute them.  Of course, you could just say they were wrong.  That's simple.  You can say that about anything.  The problem is that you can't prove to everyone why they are wrong.  That's why you either need to find physicists who will be able to construct the math to prove your theories or learn how to do it yourself.

If you do have mathematics and physics that can prove some of the FET claims, please post it here so I can review it.  Additionally, it had better be higher than introductory physics level mathematics.  You can't solve the world's problems with Algebra III/Trig and Intro Physics I.  Also, don't try to tell me how much of accepted physics is incorrect.  I've done the math and proven the theory with experimentation over my physics education.  It's going to take more than that.  If you want to tell me that RET physics is incorrect, you had better present the correct physics.

Take "bendy light" for example.  It doesn't really matter if light rays actually bend or if bendy light is a product of atmospheric distortion.  For your ideas to be taken seriously, you need to leave the realm of thought and build the math to prove it.  A simple diagram made in MS paint isn't going to prove anything. 

Ah, I see you've been reading my posts. It's OK, Brother Nohlekh made a diagram in photoshop which adds much more credibility to the Bendy Moonlight theory.

Yeah, but math!?

PJ28 please tell me how there are 2 high tides at one time on opposites sides of the earth. Please include the math and physics. Thank you.

PJ28 please tell me how there are 2 high tides at one time on opposites sides of the earth. Please include the math and physics. Thank you.

Lucky enough for you, I just re-did this derivation last week in a review of gravitation.  I'll scan the proof of it for you and put it here tomorrow.  Would you mind if I leave it in Newtonian physics, or would you like to see it in terms of the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian instead?

Newtonian is fine. Thank you.

I'll have the math up today, I got sidetracked on some other things for Math Methods that had to be done.  I'll have the time today to do the proof.

For your ideas to be taken seriously, you need to leave the realm of thought and build the math to prove it.

Equations have been given for how light would bend on a Flat Earth, but that math doesn't "prove" it.

Equations have been given...

Oh, really? Equations? Pardon me if I laugh. All I have seen so far is some unfounded speculation that light rays might bend somewhat like the graph of x^1.5.

Quote

For your ideas to be taken seriously, you need to leave the realm of thought and build the math to prove it.

Equations have been given for how light would bend on a Flat Earth, but that math doesn't "prove" it.

Have those equations been experimentally verified?

I'll have the math up today, I got sidetracked on some other things for Math Methods that had to be done.  I'll have the time today to do the proof.

Clearly.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 06, 2011, 05:15:10 PM

Quote

For your ideas to be taken seriously, you need to leave the realm of thought and build the math to prove it.

Equations have been given for how light would bend on a Flat Earth, but that math doesn't "prove" it.

Have those equations been experimentally verified?

Of course.  Tom experimented on himself, then tried it again, then thought about calling the authorities but decided to give himself one more chance, and decided that he has verified that he has experimented with himself.  Look how happy he looks in his avatar.

I'll have the math up today, I got sidetracked on some other things for Math Methods that had to be done.  I'll have the time today to do the proof.

Today? That was 12 days ago.

PJ28 please tell me how there are 2 high tides at one time on opposites sides of the earth. Please include the math and physics. Thank you.

Can you please tell me how there being 2 high tides at one time on opposite sides of earth proves Flat Earth Theory?

Anyways, it's quite simple, really.  Every action = equal and opposite reaction.  Moon pulls the tide up, the tide on the realtive "sides" gets pulled down, causing the tide on the relative "bottom" to be pushed up.



If I were a flat-earther, I would explain it like this:  Can you prove there are 2 tides?  Maybe there aren't really 2 tides!  Maybe, since math is different in a flat earth world than it is in reality (not that there's a difference between a flat earth and reality), you measure height different in one side of the world than the other!  Maybe NASA is lying about the tides!  And George Bush and 9-11 and Global Warming and Elvis works at Burger King!!!  YEAH!!!  So, THERE!!!  Pothagorean Theorum!  I think I'm smart, so that makes you stupid!

I can sympathize with the idea that "we know the truth, but we can't get a scientist to prove it because either a) they're part of the conspiracy, or b) they've been brainwashed."

My problem is... if you don't have the science, just say you don't have the science.  Just tell us you can't prove it.  Just tell us that you're theory is as flimsy as the skin on a soap bubble.  Let US form OUR conslusions based on truth.  Don't come back at an unanswerable question and tell us, "it just is," or "prove it's not," or "you're stupid," or "why can't you just believe shit that a VAST majority of SCIENTISTS disagree with and science PROVES is incorrect," or "science works differently in my imagination than it does in reality..."

Then again, if you don't have the science or the proof or any evidence, why the hell do you believe it in the first place?

This sounds like a whole bunch of nitpicking facts and speculation to support a foregone conclusion.  That is not science!

"We think so because that's how it looks up close."  So, I guess in your world, a forest is a single, big fat tree, right?  And everyone who's ever been outside the forrest is a liar and part of a conspiracy? 

Quote from: hoppy on November 03, 2011, 08:20:59 PM

PJ28 please tell me how there are 2 high tides at one time on opposites sides of the earth. Please include the math and physics. Thank you.

Can you please tell me how there being 2 high tides at one time on opposite sides of earth proves Flat Earth Theory?

Anyways, it's quite simple, really.  Every action = equal and opposite reaction.  Moon pulls the tide up, the tide on the realtive "sides" gets pulled down, causing the tide on the relative "bottom" to be pushed up.

Funny, that. I tried pulling on a rubber band around my fingers. it didn't do that. Nothing does that. You can't pull something in one direction and have it stretch the other way. In essence, that model is incoherent with reality.

Funny, that. I tried pulling on a rubber band around my fingers. it didn't do that. Nothing does that. You can't pull something in one direction and have it stretch the other way. In essence, that model is incoherent with reality.

Since when is a rubber band around your fingers an accurate analog for liquid oceans on a spinning globe? 

Let me explain it another way. The tides come from the fact that the nearer one is to the moon, the stronger the moon's gravitational pull. So, the pull on the "moon side" is stronger than the pull at the center of the earth, the pull on the opposite side is weaker:


Note that the distance earth-moon on the image is not to scale, to better show the effect.

You might ask: When earth, with water and people and all, is pulled toward the moon - why does it not eventually crash into the moon? Well, it's the same reason why the moon doesn't crash into the earth: Centrifugal forces.

To illustrate this, imagine you are whirling a lasso around above your head, with an armadillo at the end. You have to lean slightly towards the opposite side of the armadillo, otherwise you will fall over:

The earth does the same thing with the moon, except that the armadillo is replaced by the moon, and the lasso by the mutual gravitational attraction. That means, the earth's center does a tiny rotational movement  around the common mass center of earth and moon (red circle in fig. 2).

I'm not sure what the correct english word for such a movement is (in German it's "eiern"). Maybe "wobbling". Let's stick with "wobbling". At the center of the earth, this wobbling centrifugal force counters the gravitational pull from the moon (green and orange arrow at the center of the earth).

Now, look again at fig.2 and consider the forces on the water on both sides:

• On the moon side, the gravitational pull is stronger, and the wobbling centrifugal force is directed towards the armad... err the moon. Hence the water gets pulled towards the moon.
• On the oppisite side, the gravitational pull is weaker than at the center of the earth, and the centriwobbling force is stronger, hence the water gets pulled away from the moon.

Hence the two tides.

Funny, that. I tried pulling on a rubber band around my fingers. it didn't do that. Nothing does that. You can't pull something in one direction and have it stretch the other way. In essence, that model is incoherent with reality.

Yeah, you're finger isn't in space and the world's oceans aren't a solid object pinched between the moon's fingers. 

I don't know what's funnier: this comment, or Zogg's picture of the cowboy swinging the armadillo around in circles.

Quote from: Hazbollah on November 18, 2011, 07:50:18 AM

Funny, that. I tried pulling on a rubber band around my fingers. it didn't do that. Nothing does that. You can't pull something in one direction and have it stretch the other way. In essence, that model is incoherent with reality.

Since when is a rubber band around your fingers an accurate analog for liquid oceans on a spinning globe? 

Around the same time that a flat earth is accurate analog for intelligent thought.

Let me explain it another way. The tides come from the fact that the nearer one is to the moon, the stronger the moon's gravitational pull. So, the pull on the "moon side" is stronger than the pull at the center of the earth, the pull on the opposite side is weaker:

Note that the distance earth-moon on the image is not to scale, to better show the effect.

You might ask: When earth, with water and people and all, is pulled toward the moon - why does it not eventually crash into the moon? Well, it's the same reason why the moon doesn't crash into the earth: Centrifugal forces.

To illustrate this, imagine you are whirling a lasso around above your head, with an armadillo at the end. You have to lean slightly towards the opposite side of the armadillo, otherwise you will fall over:

The earth does the same thing with the moon, except that the armadillo is replaced by the moon, and the lasso by the mutual gravitational attraction. That means, the earth's center does a tiny rotational movement  around the common mass center of earth and moon (red circle in fig. 2).

I'm not sure what the correct english word for such a movement is (in German it's "eiern"). Maybe "wobbling". Let's stick with "wobbling". At the center of the earth, this wobbling centrifugal force counters the gravitational pull from the moon (green and orange arrow at the center of the earth).

Now, look again at fig.2 and consider the forces on the water on both sides:

• On the moon side, the gravitational pull is stronger, and the wobbling centrifugal force is directed towards the armad... err the moon. Hence the water gets pulled towards the moon.
• On the oppisite side, the gravitational pull is weaker than at the center of the earth, and the centriwobbling force is stronger, hence the water gets pulled away from the moon.

Hence the two tides.

Oh yeah... and this has been proven over and over to also happen on other planets and stars.  We can prove that other planets revolve around other stars because other stars have this same wobbling effect.  Hence... the Earth is a planet and the sun is a star.

PJ28 please tell me how there are 2 high tides at one time on opposites sides of the earth. Please include the math and physics. Thank you.

Got any more, Hoppy?