Formation of Bodies disproves FET

  • 106 Replies
  • 13049 Views
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #60 on: May 29, 2012, 11:43:44 AM »
So, here come more word games. Tom Bishop does not want an experiment or observation that verifies the model, he wants an experiment that shows that the word "fabric" is well used.

All Gravitational Lensing shows us is that light is attracted to stars. You might as well tell me to step off a chair for evidence of General Relativity.

General Relativity makes specific claims that the fabric of space bends to cause 'gravity'. This is what needs to be proven, not "things attract". Please reverence a single experiment which suggests that the fabric of space is bending, or even exists, and that the apparent attraction is not caused by any other mechanism.

The Large Hadrian Collider has been used to successfully warp the fabric of space-time. All records indicated this.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41784
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #61 on: May 29, 2012, 12:00:37 PM »
No one has demonstrated that the fabric of space bends to cause the gravity we feel on earth, which is why General Relativity is rejected on this forum.

Actually, they have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #62 on: May 29, 2012, 12:50:32 PM »
The Large Hadrian Collider has been used to successfully warp the fabric of space-time. All records indicated this.

Source?

People on this forum have stated that they bent space-time by dropping a ball to the floor. But this is not a demonstration that space-time is bending.

No one has demonstrated that the fabric of space bends to cause the gravity we feel on earth, which is why General Relativity is rejected on this forum.

Actually, they have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

In QM the Graviton theory of gravity also predicts those things. Studying the movements of planets and stars which pass behind the sun does not tell us anything about the mechanism of the attraction, only that things attract. What, specifically, tells us that the very fabric of space-time is bending, or that it even exists?

General Relativity makes specific claims which remain undemonstrated. Numerous theories could explain why light is attracted to the sun, or why anything attracts. There needs to be an actual test of General Relativity, not "starlight is attracted to the sun, therefore space bends."

Indeed, watching starlight being attracted to the sun tells us only that starlight is physically attracted to the sun, it does not suggest that space is bending in the background to make it look like there is attraction when there is not. Another case of choosing illusion over reality.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2012, 01:04:05 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41784
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #63 on: May 29, 2012, 01:19:59 PM »
No one has demonstrated that the fabric of space bends to cause the gravity we feel on earth, which is why General Relativity is rejected on this forum.

Actually, they have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

In QM the Graviton theory of gravity also predicts those things.

First of all, does it?  Last I knew, QM is generally not useful for astronomical predictions.  Secondly, so what if it does?  You said that GR had not been tested and I provided a source that says otherwise. 

Quote
General Relativity makes specific claims which remain undemonstrated. Numerous theories could explain why light is attracted to the sun, or why anything attracts. There needs to be an actual test of General Relativity, not "starlight is attracted to the sun, therefore space bends."

Actually, starlight bending around a star is a demonstration of space-time warping that was predicted by GR and confirmed by experimental observation.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #64 on: May 29, 2012, 02:00:17 PM »
So, here come more word games. Tom Bishop does not want an experiment or observation that verifies the model, he wants an experiment that shows that the word "fabric" is well used.

All Gravitational Lensing shows us is that light is attracted to stars. You might as well tell me to step off a chair for evidence of General Relativity.

General Relativity makes specific claims that the fabric of space bends to cause 'gravity'. This is what needs to be proven, not "things attract". Please reference a single experiment which suggests that the fabric of space is bending, or even exists.
See? Just word games. Tom Bishop tries to deflate whole theories by saying they just serve a tiny purpose, And, of course they serve just a tiny purpose because Tom Bishop will not show interest in other purposes

And again Tom Bishop wants to see a demonstration that the word "fabric" is the exact word for the phenomenon. Would the theory be better accepted by Tom Bishop if Einstein had said "infrastructure"? Or "schwapping"? So, I guess Tom Bishop will not be happy until I show him a thread from the fabric. And even then he would object because he had envisioned it of another color.

Theories produce predictions and if the predictions are verified the definitions made in the writing of the theory become new definitions of those words. Nobody expects the "charm" quark to be charming, or the "strange" quark to be stranger than the others. And nobody expects the electrons to be "negative energy" (as in evil energy) or the protons to be good energy. Physics is not word games.

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #65 on: May 29, 2012, 03:07:09 PM »
Some of you have been here long enough that you should know better.  The rest of you - here is a quote from a Moderator to help you join the enlightened.

Really.  Well congrats on recognizing Tom as a troll and still being the biggest sucker for his bullshit I've ever seen on this site.  I guarantee he doesn't put in half as much time playing the game with everybody as you do attempting to discredit him.

Kudos for being so decisively pwned by a troll.  ;D

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #66 on: May 29, 2012, 03:51:17 PM »
Some of you have been here long enough that you should know better.  The rest of you - here is a quote from a Moderator to help you join the enlightened.

Really.  Well congrats on recognizing Tom as a troll and still being the biggest sucker for his bullshit I've ever seen on this site.  I guarantee he doesn't put in half as much time playing the game with everybody as you do attempting to discredit him.

Kudos for being so decisively pwned by a troll.  ;D


Yes, I think Tom is a troll.  You could probably have even pulled a much more recent (i.e. within the last two months) post demonstrating that.  The really sad thing is I think all these guys know it, and they still choose to endlessly argue with him.

Now, to be fair, the debate itself is a great deal of the attraction of this website, whatever someone believes.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #67 on: May 29, 2012, 10:43:16 PM »
What, specifically, tells us that the very fabric of space-time is bending, or that it even exists?

Reality exists independent of human observation.

For example, when you use the word 'uncertainty' you mean that you are not certain about something that may or may not happen. You have learnt to use this word in connection with a number of finite situations, such as whether or not it will rain tomorrow. The word is not usually used to mean 'the uncertainty whether anything will go on existing' or 'the uncertainty whether anything is existing now'. It is illegitimate to use the word 'uncertainty' to refer to these kinds of uncertainty, and it is therefore impossible to formulate any statements whatever about them.

In this simple way all discourse about the infinite and inconceivable is eliminated, for it is evident that all human words have actually been developed by finite beings to deal with things they are able to conceive.

There is now no need to think about 'reality' except in the sense of 'what all right-thinking humans are in verbal agreement about'.

For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2012, 10:53:30 PM by El Cid »

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #68 on: May 30, 2012, 07:26:41 PM »
This is, as everything Tom Bishop does, a word game. He tries to discredit some of Einstein's theories by showing that Einstein was not infallible, as if science depended on this.


To be fair trig, you were the one who suggested that because Einstein was right about one thing, he was therefore unlikely to be wrong about something else.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #69 on: May 30, 2012, 07:28:49 PM »
Reality exists independent of human observation.


There is now no need to think about 'reality' except in the sense of 'what all right-thinking humans are in verbal agreement about'.


Which is it? ???

"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #70 on: May 30, 2012, 09:01:20 PM »
The Large Hadrian Collider has been used to successfully warp the fabric of space-time. All records indicated this.

Source?

People on this forum have stated that they bent space-time by dropping a ball to the floor. But this is not a demonstration that space-time is bending.

No one has demonstrated that the fabric of space bends to cause the gravity we feel on earth, which is why General Relativity is rejected on this forum.

Actually, they have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

In QM the Graviton theory of gravity also predicts those things. Studying the movements of planets and stars which pass behind the sun does not tell us anything about the mechanism of the attraction, only that things attract. What, specifically, tells us that the very fabric of space-time is bending, or that it even exists?

General Relativity makes specific claims which remain undemonstrated. Numerous theories could explain why light is attracted to the sun, or why anything attracts. There needs to be an actual test of General Relativity, not "starlight is attracted to the sun, therefore space bends."

Indeed, watching starlight being attracted to the sun tells us only that starlight is physically attracted to the sun, it does not suggest that space is bending in the background to make it look like there is attraction when there is not. Another case of choosing illusion over reality.

Tell me, Tom, to which quantum mechanical theory of gravity are you referring?  You make this claim regularly, that General Relativity is equivalent to quantum descriptions of gravity.  Can you demonstrate this, or provide a source that can warrant your claim?

Here is a paper that explains some of the successes of General Relativity, and it explains why spacetime warping is a integral and fundamental aspect of this theory of gravity.  Gravitational theories that do not take this warping into account make different, less accurate predictions.

Testing General Relativity in the Solar System, Turyshev 2010.





Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #71 on: May 31, 2012, 01:48:54 AM »
This is, as everything Tom Bishop does, a word game. He tries to discredit some of Einstein's theories by showing that Einstein was not infallible, as if science depended on this.


To be fair trig, you were the one who suggested that because Einstein was right about one thing, he was therefore unlikely to be wrong about something else.
If you are also going to play word games, at least be intellectually honest: Einstein was, in essence, right about one thing (Relativity) therefore he was necessarily right about another thing (the orbits of the planets) that is so closely related that one cannot understand one without the other.

When your two things are totally unrelated you are right not to extend the credibility of a person from one thing to another. But you are insulting Einstein when you reduce his work to just things.

?

BoatswainsMate

  • 675
  • You just been Tom Bishop'ed
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #72 on: May 31, 2012, 12:24:59 PM »
I just have to say this, maybe it is off topic, but on topic in a certain way. I find it strange that FE has to dismiss all claims and photos from space exploration even from private or just the average joe evidences. Do you not find it funny that FE is so perfectly defended at all sides from any evidence that would disprove it? like when this theory was made they got together and thought of all the ways it can be disproven and called them all fake, false, or a conspiracy.

Everything that can disprove FE is disproven by FE... flippen strange. Sorry if I derailed a little, but I am getting tired of any discussions about space or physics simply blow off because you cannot use any scientific evidence... it is all fake,lies, or conspiracy. Once something does come up that can disprove FE no one dares touch it, and the ones that did attempt to defend FE start to nit pick at questions and choose what they want to argue, not what is being asked.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 12:27:09 PM by BoatswainsMate »

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #73 on: June 10, 2012, 01:09:48 AM »
I still want to know what force would have flattened the earth. can anyone explain how accelaration would have done this.

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #74 on: June 10, 2012, 01:14:20 AM »
I guess I can kind visualise the gravitational force of the elements in liguid form pushing down on each other making it flat so I guess I answered that myself lol.

?

Thork

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #75 on: June 10, 2012, 02:52:19 AM »
I still want to know what force would have flattened the earth. can anyone explain how acceleration would have done this.
In the early formation of the earth it would have been a molten lump of rock. As it accelerated through space before the gases had been released from the rock to form an atmosphere, meteors would have pummelled earth as it cooled whilst  it accelerated into them. Meteors are most likely responsible for smashing the surface of the earth into a flat shape. Like hammering a piece of hot iron.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #76 on: June 10, 2012, 12:01:36 PM »
I still want to know what force would have flattened the earth. can anyone explain how acceleration would have done this.
In the early formation of the earth it would have been a molten lump of rock. As it accelerated through space before the gases had been released from the rock to form an atmosphere, meteors would have pummelled earth as it cooled whilst  it accelerated into them. Meteors are most likely responsible for smashing the surface of the earth into a flat shape. Like hammering a piece of hot iron.

Where do meteors come from?
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

?

Thork

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #77 on: June 10, 2012, 12:07:59 PM »
Where do meteors come from?
You get them when a mummy and a daddy meteor, love each other very much.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #78 on: June 10, 2012, 12:15:13 PM »
Where do meteors come from?
You get them when a mummy and a daddy meteor, love each other very much.

You are just displacing the problem. How was born the first meteor?
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

?

Thork

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #79 on: June 10, 2012, 12:17:07 PM »
Where do meteors come from?
You get them when a mummy and a daddy meteor, love each other very much.

You are just displacing the problem. How was born the first meteor?
God made it.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #80 on: June 10, 2012, 12:34:15 PM »
Where do meteors come from?
You get them when a mummy and a daddy meteor, love each other very much.

You are just displacing the problem. How was born the first meteor?
God made it.

Who made God?
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

?

Thork

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #81 on: June 10, 2012, 12:36:30 PM »
Where do meteors come from?
You get them when a mummy and a daddy meteor, love each other very much.
You are just displacing the problem. How was born the first meteor?
God made it.

Who made God?
He wasn't created. He just is.

Quote from: God (Revelations 22:13)
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #82 on: June 10, 2012, 12:40:27 PM »
Where do meteors come from?
You get them when a mummy and a daddy meteor, love each other very much.
You are just displacing the problem. How was born the first meteor?
God made it.

Who made God?
He wasn't created. He just is.

Quote from: God (Revelations 22:13)
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
And who said that? God? Do you really believe a guy that appears and claims to be inmortal and to have createn you?
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

?

Thork

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #83 on: June 10, 2012, 12:42:52 PM »
Where do meteors come from?
You get them when a mummy and a daddy meteor, love each other very much.
You are just displacing the problem. How was born the first meteor?
God made it.

Who made God?
He wasn't created. He just is.

Quote from: God (Revelations 22:13)
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
And who said that? God? Do you really believe a guy that appears and claims to be inmortal and to have createn you?
He sounds pretty powerful. Its probably best not to provoke him. :-\

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #84 on: June 10, 2012, 12:53:20 PM »
Where do meteors come from?
You get them when a mummy and a daddy meteor, love each other very much.
You are just displacing the problem. How was born the first meteor?
God made it.

Who made God?
He wasn't created. He just is.

Quote from: God (Revelations 22:13)
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
And who said that? God? Do you really believe a guy that appears and claims to be inmortal and to have createn you?
He sounds pretty powerful. Its probably best not to provoke him. :-\
I live on a region famous for its 160 forest fires a year. I don't fear a flaming bush.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #85 on: June 10, 2012, 01:21:36 PM »
I live on a region famous for its 160 forest fires a year. I don't fear a flaming bush.

Any time you go on a date, God will punish you with a flaming bush.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #86 on: June 10, 2012, 01:27:38 PM »
I live on a region famous for its 160 forest fires a year. I don't fear a flaming bush.

Any time you go on a date, God will punish you with a flaming bush.
Too late, I think
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

?

Thork

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #87 on: June 10, 2012, 01:59:54 PM »
I live on a region famous for its 160 forest fires a year. I don't fear a flaming bush.

Any time you go on a date, God will punish you with a flaming bush.
Too late, I think
Get Canesten.

?

BoatswainsMate

  • 675
  • You just been Tom Bishop'ed
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #88 on: June 10, 2012, 02:40:17 PM »
I live on a region famous for its 160 forest fires a year. I don't fear a flaming bush.

Any time you go on a date, God will punish you with a flaming bush.

Fire crotch!

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #89 on: June 11, 2012, 06:36:08 AM »
I live on a region famous for its 160 forest fires a year. I don't fear a flaming bush.

Any time you go on a date, God will punish you with a flaming bush.

Fire crotch!
Not this again.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.