List of flaws in RE Theory

We often hear of the flaws in FE theory, but no one points out the flaws in RE theory.

Heres a list I will update when people post contributions.

1. Phantom islands. FE theory does not rely on satellites, therefore does not have this phantom island.
(www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56647.0.html#.UMTqxXeoV8E)

2. Gravity is the result of an unexplained force. Scientists cannot explain gravity.  Flat earth theory can explain gravity by saying the Earth accelerates upwards.
(http://www.livescience.com/1770-greatest-mysteries-gravity.html)

NOTE

3. General unsolved problems
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics)

phantom islands are the result of using multiple images to create one, its not even an issue
gravity has been discussed a million times

1) Are cartographers predicted to be infallible in RE theory? Errors in maps are a well known and often deliberate phenomenon.

2) Well FE is just as dependent on the principle of relativity as RE theory. Given that the predictions of GR in the Earths gravitational field are a matter of record it would do neither theory any good for relativity to be disproved. You can say the field is caused by whatever but the gauge symmetry is essential to both.

How the moon is lit up during the day.

How the moon is lit up during the day.

the sun

I just went and looked in my bathroom - and yep I can see the light in the mirror at the same time as the light.

1) Are cartographers predicted to be infallible in RE theory? Errors in maps are a well known and often deliberate phenomenon.

2) Well FE is just as dependent on the principle of relativity as RE theory. Given that the predictions of GR in the Earths gravitational field are a matter of record it would do neither theory any good for relativity to be disproved. You can say the field is caused by whatever but the gauge symmetry is essential to both.

1) No, but satellite images are.

2) GR was not mentioned

1) There are a multitude of ways errors creep into satellite photos the other poster suggested but one. Optical problems are probably more common but it varies on a case-by-case basis I would image.

2) As GR is our explanation of gravity then it sort of does matter. Its like pretending quantum mechanics doesn't exist and then saying we don't understand electromagnetism. If you pretend an entire branch of science doesn't exist the of course you won't understand what that area of science models.

Quote from: bowler on December 09, 2012, 11:55:38 AM

1) Are cartographers predicted to be infallible in RE theory? Errors in maps are a well known and often deliberate phenomenon.

2) Well FE is just as dependent on the principle of relativity as RE theory. Given that the predictions of GR in the Earths gravitational field are a matter of record it would do neither theory any good for relativity to be disproved. You can say the field is caused by whatever but the gauge symmetry is essential to both.

1) No, but satellite images are.

2) GR was not mentioned

1) There wasn't even a satellite image of the island. It was a blacked-out spec.

2) FET uses gravity to explain things too, like tides.  Just because we can't explain it doesn't mean we can't see proof of it.

Two hlgh tides on opposite sides of the earth at the same time.

How the moon is lit up during the day.

Are you seriously asking that? If Flat Earthers (and I'm not saying all of you are the same) don't know the answer to that from the simple basics that we are taught through science than on what are you basing yourself to support a flat earth? Are you cherry picking the science that supports your theory? Does what astronomers say have any validity to you? They are the ones who study this...are they confused or lying to us? you know more than they do?

Two hlgh tides on opposite sides of the earth at the same time.

We could have a discussion on tides in another thread if you'd like.  I'm just saying FET is somewhat reliant on gravity to explain some things, too.

Speed of galaxies is too fast, disproves gravity.

Certainly if dark matter doesn't turn up. Of course stuffs FE as well both RET and FET stand or fall on relativity. Well RET no so much you can still have gravitation. Though plenty of terrestrial experiments verify relativity to the levels required here. There was looking like being some interesting results from photo-production of pions due to cosmic rays that might have put SR on sticky ground. Although that's starting to look like a detector effect. These are all good tests of relativity under extreme conditions, of course if the universe is tiny then none of it matters of course. And theres a lot of explaining to do by FE theorists whatever one of those is.

We often hear of the flaws in FE theory, but no one points out the flaws in RE theory.

Heres a list I will update when people post contributions.

1. Phantom islands.
(www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56647.0.html#.UMTqxXeoV8E)

2. Gravity is the result of an unexplained force. Scientists cannot explain gravity.
(http://www.livescience.com/1770-greatest-mysteries-gravity.html)

3. General unsolved problems
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics)

Actually, FE'ers bring these things up all the time.  I just wondering which of these "problems" have anything to do with the shape of the earth?

Actually, FE'ers bring these things up all the time.  I just wondering which of these "problems" have anything to do with the shape of the earth?

Funny, RE'ers (including yourself) ask us to explain the mechanism behind the UA all the time, or the causes of some of its effects. Why are those questions relevant to the shape of the Earth, but not similar/identical questions about gravity?

Funny, RE'ers (including yourself) ask us to explain the mechanism behind the UA all the time, or the causes of some of its effects. Why are those questions relevant to the shape of the Earth, but not similar/identical questions about gravity?

Because the UA can only work on a flat earth.  Gravity, on the other hand, can work regardless of the shape of the earth.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 09, 2012, 07:03:04 PM

Funny, RE'ers (including yourself) ask us to explain the mechanism behind the UA all the time, or the causes of some of its effects. Why are those questions relevant to the shape of the Earth, but not similar/identical questions about gravity?

Because the UA can only work on a flat earth.  Gravity, on the other hand, can work regardless of the shape of the earth.

So? That's an issue of compatibility, which is not something that can by itself justify those questions in one instance but not the other.

So? That's an issue of compatibility, which is not something that can by itself justify those questions in one instance but not the other.

If the UA is incompatible with RET, then why should anyone care how RET explains it?

Regardless, you still haven't explained what any of those "flaws in RET" have to do with the shape of the earth. 

To respond to the OP-

If you're making an arguement against any theory It would be a good opportunity to detail how another theory is a better fit.

So - along with listing each flaw in 'RE Theory' - demonstrate alongside it how your theory better explains observable phenomena.

If the UA is incompatible with RET, then why should anyone care how RET explains it?

That's the answer to a different question, I'm afraid. Simply put, explanations for the UA have no more or less to do with the shape of the Earth than explanations for gravity. Be consistent.

Regardless, you still haven't explained what any of those "flaws in RET" have to do with the shape of the earth.

Uh-uh, no "regardless". The point in question is central to whether they are problems or not.

Quote from: markjo on December 09, 2012, 09:07:30 PM

If the UA is incompatible with RET, then why should anyone care how RET explains it?

That's the answer to a different question, I'm afraid. Simply put, explanations for the UA have no more or less to do with the shape of the Earth than explanations for gravity. Be consistent.

To be fair, it's hard to be consistent when RET research into gravity is so much more mature and robust than FET research into the UA.

Quote from: markjo on December 09, 2012, 09:07:30 PM

Regardless, you still haven't explained what any of those "flaws in RET" have to do with the shape of the earth.

Uh-uh, no "regardless". The point in question is central to whether they are problems or not.

So you're saying that flaws listed in the OP don't necessarily negate RET?

To be fair, it's hard to be consistent when RET research into gravity is so much more mature and robust than FET research into the UA.

Sorry, what? The consistency of your arguments is affected by the relative maturity of the two fields? I think you should get some rest, markjo.

So you're saying that flaws listed in the OP don't necessarily negate RET?

I don't think a flaw in anything 'negates' it, but if it is a flaw, it should be acknowledged as such. What I was saying, however, is simply that what holds true for these flaws holds true for equivalent flaws (if any) in FET. So if these flaws have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, as you appear to be claiming, then the same is true for equivalent flaws in FET.


All I am saying is that you need to be consistent. And your current position is either inconsistent, or a bold and radical departure from arguments you have made previously.