List of flaws in FET

A response to the list of flaws in RET

1: Eclipses

2: Neutrinos

3: Distances in southern hemisphere

4: Reliance on religious principles to support theories

Feel free to add more!

You have no idea how happy number 2 has made me.

5. The Wilmore model has a sun that lights up parts of the world where they can't possibly even see the sun.  New Zealanders never see the sun.*

5.5 Wilmore Model: *New Zealand. North/South/Up down/WTF?

6. Antarctica: whole or not--it's a fact that if you are on antarctica in its summer-time, the sun will make a complete circle in the sky around you.  This is not possible on either FET model.

The model that is not the wilmore model, has Antarctica surrounding the rest of the earth, but it was explored long before space travel and was always (and still is) depicted as one continent surrounded by water.

The southern hemisphere is just one big fail.

1. Antichthon

2. Trajectories appear bent by UA.
3. Is wrong for RET. Don't expect us to duplicate the same mistakes.
4. Never happens. No one says "god dun it".
5. Its not the 'Wilmore' model. Only that idiot iwantobelieve calls it that because he's completely obsessed with Wilmore. Its a Lambert azimuthal equal-area projection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_azimuthal_equal-area_projection
5.5 answered
6. You say that like you have been there. Which you haven't.

Why would UA bend the path a neutrino? Upwards no less.

Thork swoops in and secures a record time Flat Earth victory

I thought I saw a cape.

Why would UA bend the path a neutrino? Upwards no less.

Are you referring to the neutrinos that supposedly broke the speed of light?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/09/110923-neutrinos-speed-of-light-particles-cern-physics-einstein-science

Totally embarrassing for the RET crowd that one. Then some back tracking, crossing out, changing of numbers and ... do you know what, I'm not interested in the absolute mess they made of that experiment. Its been bodged to fit the round earth model after it clearly didn't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484
^ have a read through the comments section of all those knowledgeable people giving opinions on what they think the results mean in their best science voices. Happy to ditch Einstein at a moments notice or embrace him again in an instant. Whatever the papers tell them to believe really. And with a nasal condescending explanation to match.

Your chart showing the movement of the sun, how would this fit in with its movements over the earth to create day night cycles and seasonal cycles?

Quote from: bowler on December 09, 2012, 02:00:15 PM

Why would UA bend the path a neutrino? Upwards no less.

Are you referring to the neutrinos that supposedly broke the speed of light?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/09/110923-neutrinos-speed-of-light-particles-cern-physics-einstein-science

Totally embarrassing for the RET crowd that one. Then some back tracking, crossing out, changing of numbers and ... do you know what, I'm not interested in the absolute mess they made of that experiment. Its been bodged to fit the round earth model after it clearly didn't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484
^ have a read through the comments section of all those knowledgeable people giving opinions on what they think the results mean in their best science voices. Happy to ditch Einstein at a moments notice or embrace him again in an instant. Whatever the papers tell them to believe really. And with a nasal condescending explanation to match.

No why would UA bend a neutrino, straight forward question? Nothing to do with a timing error.

I would have though a forum that prides itself on skepticism would be hailing that as an example of how science should be done. Publishing an uncomfortable result even though you know its probably wrong and will probably have to climb down. It was a brave thing to do but it was the right thing to do, only embarrassing if you don't know how science should work.

1. Antichthon

2. Trajectories appear bent by UA.
3. Is wrong for RET. Don't expect us to duplicate the same mistakes.
4. Never happens. No one says "god dun it".
5. Its not the 'Wilmore' model. Only that idiot iwantobelieve calls it that because he's completely obsessed with Wilmore. Its a Lambert azimuthal equal-area projection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_azimuthal_equal-area_projection
5.5 answered
6. You say that like you have been there. Which you haven't.

1. YOur chart shows the earth moving around a central point. FET is geocentric and there is no force which would cause this movement.
2. NO they don;t
3. we have a ton of shipping data, flight data, etc. to support our point. YOu don;t
4. some people do.
5. still a terrible model.
5.5 answered
6. Wonderful comeback. it is obvious that nobody ever has gone to antarctica.

5. The Wilmore model has a sun that lights up parts of the world where they can't possibly even see the sun.  New Zealanders never see the sun.*

This is the distribution of light in the model I support, which I have christened the Antichtonean model:


Please note that this image does not accurately represent the position of the Sun, just the distribution of Sunlight.

5.5 Wilmore Model: *New Zealand. North/South/Up down/WTF?

North and South have nothing to do with up and down. Compasses point toward the magnetic field lines emanating from the poles. You are conflating totally unrelated concepts.

6. Antarctica: whole or not--it's a fact that if you are on antarctica in its summer-time, the sun will make a complete circle in the sky around you.  This is not possible on either FET model.

If light is bent, then so is the apparent position of the Sun. The apparent position of the Sun will thus be different to its actual position.

Quote from: FlatOrange on December 09, 2012, 01:29:57 PM

5. The Wilmore model has a sun that lights up parts of the world where they can't possibly even see the sun.  New Zealanders never see the sun.*

This is the distribution of light in the model I support, which I have christened the Antichtonean model:


Please note that this image does not accurately represent the position of the Sun, just the distribution of Sunlight.

HOw then, is there a point where the sun lights up only the edges of the earth? That doesn;t make any sense.

Aetheric eddies bend light so that it arrives only in those areas. The fluctuation may be caused by the movement of aether, the actual (as opposed to apparent) movement of the Sun, or a combination of both.

North and South have nothing to do with up and down. Compasses point toward the magnetic field lines emanating from the poles. You are conflating totally unrelated concepts.

Why don't you draw magnetic field lines on your picture. 

Aetheric eddies bend light so that it arrives only in those areas. The fluctuation may be caused by the movement of aether, the actual (as opposed to apparent) movement of the Sun, or a combination of both.

Comments like these show just how important the scientific method is.  Zetetic method leads to made up answers. 

Why don't you draw magnetic field lines on your picture.

The longitudinal lines serve as an illustration of concept.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 10, 2012, 05:24:33 PM

Aetheric eddies bend light so that it arrives only in those areas. The fluctuation may be caused by the movement of aether, the actual (as opposed to apparent) movement of the Sun, or a combination of both.

Comments like these show just how important the scientific method is.  Zetetic method leads to made up answers.

The answer I have given is merely speculation - I do not consider it to have been Zetetically demonstrated. Scientists speculate all the time, without any evidence to support that speculation. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, because speculating is a normal thing for humans to do. As long as it is acknowledged to be speculation, then be you scientist or Zetetic, there is no problem.

Aetheric eddies bend light so that it arrives only in those areas. The fluctuation may be caused by the movement of aether, the actual (as opposed to apparent) movement of the Sun, or a combination of both.

I'd love to see some evidence for this, as well as a few observations of these eddies. Perhaps if we bounced a radio signal off of them it would wind up in antarctica?

Quote from: sokarul on December 10, 2012, 05:29:49 PM

Why don't you draw magnetic field lines on your picture.

The longitudinal lines serve as an illustration of concept.

So north of Australia is Africa? Seems like how you claim the suns position is wrong, so is everything else but the light.

The answer I have given is merely speculation - I do not consider it to have been Zetetically demonstrated. Scientists speculate all the time, without any evidence to support that speculation. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, because speculating is a normal thing for humans to do. As long as it is acknowledged to be speculation, then be you scientist or Zetetic, there is no problem.

Ok, so it is just your opinion just trying to find an answer. You didn't point this out. 

So north of Australia is Africa? Seems like how you claim the suns position is wrong, so is everything else but the light.

North is whatever direction the magnetic field lines emanating from the South pole and leading to the North pole lead in.

Ok, so it is just your opinion just trying to find an answer. You didn't point this out. 

Not in this thread, but I have done so on many times in other threads. Moreover, I have outlined my interpretation of the Zetetic Method, and noted the distinction between speculation and Zetetic demonstration. The methodological status of the claim was not relevant to the question asked, and given my very public stance on the the subject, I can hardly be accused of deception.

Quote from: sokarul on December 10, 2012, 05:44:40 PM

So north of Australia is Africa? Seems like how you claim the suns position is wrong, so is everything else but the light.

North is whatever direction the magnetic field lines emanating from the South pole and leading to the North pole lead in.

And it needs to match what is observed. Your map doesn't match anything.   It's fitting your map is posted in this thread titled" List of flaws in FET" Still no accurate FE map.

Not in this thread, but I have done so on many times in other threads. Moreover, I have outlined my interpretation of the Zetetic Method, and noted the distinction between speculation and Zetetic demonstration. The methodological status of the claim was not relevant to the question asked, and given my very public stance on the the subject, I can hardly be accused of deception.

Ok, due to your previous writings I will take whatever you say as speculation if no "sufficient empirical data" is provided. There is no other way.   

And it needs to match what is observed. Your map doesn't match anything.   It's fitting your map is posted in this thread titled" List of flaws in FET" Still no accurate FE map.

I don't claim that it is accurate. It is merely an image used for illustrative purposes. Given how often I say this, I am amazed that long-standing members continue to act as though I have said otherwise.

So this map now... Its just a projection of an Earth onto a flat surface... So nobody suggested anything... You just copied a RET map and said it works for you

So this map now... Its just a projection of an Earth onto a flat surface... So nobody suggested anything... You just copied a RET map and said it works for you

It's what I think the rough arrangement of the continents is. How difficult is that to understand?

A response to the list of flaws in RET

1: Eclipses

2: Neutrinos

3: Distances in southern hemisphere

4: Reliance on religious principles to support theories

Feel free to add more!

Hi,

There are over 100 verified proofs the earth is flat.

http://flatearthlogic.webs.com/hundredproofs.htm

I do not rely on religion to justify theories, merely reason. Neutrinos are only a theoretical construct physicists use to make their piecemeal models work and keep their grant writers happy.

Quote from: cartwheelnurd on December 09, 2012, 12:45:10 PM

A response to the list of flaws in RET

1: Eclipses

2: Neutrinos

3: Distances in southern hemisphere

4: Reliance on religious principles to support theories

Feel free to add more!

Hi,

There are over 100 verified proofs the earth is flat.

http://flatearthlogic.webs.com/hundredproofs.htm

I do not rely on religion to justify theories, merely reason. Neutrinos are only a theoretical construct physicists use to make their piecemeal models work and keep their grant writers happy.

First of all, I read the first ten of those and could dismiss every one. If you want to tell me the ones that you think I can't answer, feel free. But I won;t read all of them after seeing ten ridiculous ones.

Second of all, the reliance on religion is what i see as the reason for many things, such as the formation of the planet and its strange attributes, whihc cannot and has not been explained asa far as I have seen.

FInally, the nuetrinos exist and they have multibillion dollar detectors which do, in fact, provide data. You can;t say that neutrinos are a conspiracy, because every physisict whose ever studied them has to be in on it. This is less plausible than the NASA conspiracy.

Hi,

There are over 100 verified proofs the earth is flat.

http://flatearthlogic.webs.com/hundredproofs.htm

I do not rely on religion to justify theories, merely reason. Neutrinos are only a theoretical construct physicists use to make their piecemeal models work and keep their grant writers happy.

1. The aeronaut can see for himself that Earth is a Plane. The appearance presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has ever attained, is that of a concave surface - this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface that is truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.

In 1885 there was never anyone that jumped from space was there?

8. If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

Mariners now carry GPS and they are usable thanks to the coordinate system of our global Earth and the many satellites that orbit the Earth.

17. Human beings require a surface on which to live that, in its general character, shall be LEVEL; and since the Omniscient Creator must have been perfectly acquainted with the requirements of His creatures, it follows that, being an All-wise Creator, He has met them thoroughly. This is a theological proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Oh here we go... *face palm*

Quote from: geepun92 on December 10, 2012, 11:19:50 PM

So this map now... Its just a projection of an Earth onto a flat surface... So nobody suggested anything... You just copied a RET map and said it works for you

It's what I think the rough arrangement of the continents is. How difficult is that to understand?

IS THERE ANY MAP THAT DOES AS A GLOBE DOES FOR FET?!?!?! IT CANT BE HARD

IS THERE ANY MAP THAT DOES AS A GLOBE DOES FOR FET?!?!?!

Lie about the shape of the earth? No.