List of flaws in FET

flatorange, I could go on and on. Most of those proofs are downright ridiculous.

29. If the Earth were a globe, it would, unquestionably, have the same general characteristics - no matter its size - as a small globe that may be stood upon the table. As the small globe has top, bottom, and sides, so must also the large one - no matter how large it be. But, as the Earth, which is "supposed" to be a large globe, bas no sides or bottom as the small globe has, the conclusion is irresistible that it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Yes this makes sense. Globes definitely have definitive sides and had been seen from space in 1885.

67. Seven-hundred miles is said to be the length of the great Canal, in China, Certain it is that, when this canal was formed, no "allowance" was made for "curvature." Yet the canal is a fact without it. This is a Chinese proof that the Earth is not a globe.

This also makes sense. Chinese proofs are fundamentally different than western ones. Also the author seems to assume that people are perfect and that every measurement is exact, as well as the fact that there would be a noticable curvature over supershort distances.

THese are all ridiculous.

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!

1.. Explained by eyewalls

2. No issue

3. An issue in RET, not FET

4. Incorrect

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!

1.. Explained by eyewalls

2. No issue

3. An issue in RET, not FET

4. Incorrect

What are eyewalls in this context?

How do you explain the neutrino phenomenon (not breaking the speed of light, but being shot into the ground to arrive at another detination)

We can support ourselves with data, and have. YOu have not.

Only for some is religion a problem.

Quote from: Tausami on December 13, 2012, 01:00:22 PM

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!

1.. Explained by eyewalls

2. No issue

3. An issue in RET, not FET

4. Incorrect

What are eyewalls in this context?

How do you explain the neutrino phenomenon (not breaking the speed of light, but being shot into the ground to arrive at another detination)

We can support ourselves with data, and have. YOu have not.

Only for some is religion a problem.

1. Exactly what they sound like, existing within the Aetheric Whirlpool.

2. Well, the main beliefs are that they either refract (see electromagnetic acceleration theory) or have some form of repulsion to aether. Either would cause them to bend, resulting in an apparent curvature.

3. Incorrect

4. It's not a problem for the majority. This argument is equivalent to me saying that the existence of YEC'ers are a problem for RET. They're an embarrassment, nothing more.

Okay now do 5 and 6.  I'm afraid Lord Wilmore didn't understand what I was saying about New Zealanders and their orientation.  Do they look towards Antarctica to see the sun?  Why/why not?

Do the aetheric winds make the sun appear in the northern sky for new zealanders when it fact it is south of them?

Okay now do 5 and 6.  I'm afraid Lord Wilmore didn't understand what I was saying about New Zealanders and their orientation.  Do they look towards Antarctica to see the sun?  Why/why not?

Do the aetheric winds make the sun appear in the northern sky for new zealanders when it fact it is south of them?

The actual position of the Sun is impossible to know without a fully developed theory of aether. The apparent position is determined by the movement of both aether and the Sun itself.

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?

It fits perfectly.

thank you very much for this very helpful illustration.

i'm finding that many of the questions i have regarding the flat earth have been discussed here, but actually locating the discussions is very slow.

I'd like the FES to explain the flaw in FET that is stellar aberration, which proves the motion of the earth around the sun.

I'd also like them to explain where the moon is during a solar eclipse.

I'd like the FES to explain the flaw in FET that is stellar aberration, which proves the motion of the earth around the sun.

I'd also like them to explain where the moon is during a solar eclipse.

How does the slight shifting of stars prove that the earth moves? Observing movement of the stars only suggests that the stars move.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 02, 2013, 05:50:07 AM

I'd like the FES to explain the flaw in FET that is stellar aberration, which proves the motion of the earth around the sun.

I'd also like them to explain where the moon is during a solar eclipse.

How does the slight shifting of stars prove that the earth moves? Observing movement of the stars only suggests that the stars move.

I thought you guys followed Einstein's laws? It shows that the earth and stars move relative to each other. Whether the earth stands still and the universe moves around it or the earth moves and the stars stand still, it is fundamentally the same thing. Stellar aberration proves that there is a relative motion between them which is equivalent to that which would be experienced if the stars were still relative to the earth if the earth was following an ellipse around the sun. Your claim that it ONLY suggests that the stars move is rubbish, of course, like all the other physics you advocate.
But if you want to perceive stellar aberration as being caused by billions of other unrelated objects all moving in sync in a pattern that is equivalent to a relative movement of the earth in an elliptical orbit as independently predicted by Newton's laws, then that's your prerogative. Since these two options are indistinguishable under the laws of relativity, it requires there to be some sort of extra evidence to decide which is happening.
Newton's laws quite adequately explain the pattern of the motion in its speed, direction and magnitude if it's taken to be the earth moving around the sun. Tell me Mr Bishop, what known laws of physics back up your alternative explanation?

And would you like to tell me where you think the moon is during a solar eclipse? You can use a diagram if you like. Is it mentioned in Earth Not a Globe?

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 02, 2013, 05:50:07 AM

I'd like the FES to explain the flaw in FET that is stellar aberration, which proves the motion of the earth around the sun.

I'd also like them to explain where the moon is during a solar eclipse.

How does the slight shifting of stars prove that the earth moves? Observing movement of the stars only suggests that the stars move.

It's not that the stars appear to move, but it's how the stars appear to move that proves that the earth moves around the sun.
http://cseligman.com/text/history/bradley.htm

  How Bradley's observations differed from the expected effects of parallax. As shown on the left, as the Earth moves to one side of its orbit, g Draconis should move to the opposite side of its parallactic ellipse (the path the star seems to follow during the year, as a result of our motion around the Sun). Thus, when the Earth is at points A, B and C, the star should appear to be at points a, b and c. Instead, as shown on the right, as the Earth moves from one point to the next, the apparent positions are shifted in the direction of the Earth's motion, which is a quarter circle ahead of the expected parallactic shift. In addition (although not demonstrated here), the amount of the parallactic shift depends upon the star's distance, being larger for closer stars, and smaller for more distant stars; whereas stellar aberration is the same for every star in a given region, regardless of its distance. (Parallax produces an elliptical motion, circular at the Ecliptic poles, and linear at the Ecliptic plane, whose semi-major axis equals the reciprocal of each star's distance in parsecs, which is of course different for different stars. Stellar aberration produces an elliptical motion, circular at the Ecliptic poles, and linear at the Ecliptic plane, whose semi-major axis equals a constant, regardless of the distance or angular position of the star, equal to one radian multiplied by the ratio of the Earth's orbital velocity, to the speed of light. Said statements to be explained in further revisions of this page.)

Watching the stars slowly and slightly shift in position over the course of the year only proves that the stars are shifting in position. It says nothing of the earth.

Watching the stars slowly and slightly shift in position over the course of the year only proves that the stars are shifting in position. It says nothing of the earth.

Are you unable to read either of the last two posts? 

Yes, someone saw a star wobble and assumed that it must be the earth in motion, in contradiction to the direct observation that the star was in motion.

The actual phenomena doesn't happen with all stars, only a few. Since in FET the stars are small and close to the earth and in constant motion, it stands to reason that some stars might be slightly wobbly in their motion.

The seasons in particular are caused by the sun moving North-South over the year, squishing and contracting in their circular motion around the North Pole between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. The FAQ simplifies the matter by saying the sun moves, but it's not just the sun that moves, but the entire stellar system which contracts and expands over a period of six months. It might be that a side effect of this movement causes the parallax wobble of the stars shifting from left to right every six months as seen in the illustration you posted.

Yes, someone saw a star wobble and assumed that it must be the earth in motion, in contradiction to the direct observation that the star was in motion.

The actual phenomena in action is more like a slight shift north-south and then south north over the course of the year. It doesn't happen with all stars, either, only a few. Since in FET the stars are small and close to the earth and in constant motion, it stands to reason that some stars might be slightly wobbly in their motion.

I presented the information that the two are indistinguishable under relativity (ignored by you) and that in order to work out which movement takes priority we must look at the forces in action. I made the case for the forces described by Newton leading to the conclusion that the observed movement between earth and stars pointing to the earth moving relative to the billions of stars rather than the billions of stars moving cyclically relative both to the earth AND each other (also backed up in Markjo's post). I requested you present your case for the forces in action that would cause this movement (ignored by you).
So in summary: we've shown how the otherwise indistinguishable movement is more likely to be the earth rather than the rest of the universe moving. It's your turn to present your case for the forces involved causing stars to move. I'm almost tempted to say if you think that "direct observation" is enough, then you must think when you sit in a train carriage the landscape is magically pulled past you while you remain motionless. Because that's what direct observation shows us.

Yes, someone saw a star wobble and assumed that it must be the earth in motion, in contradiction to the direct observation that the star was in motion.

The actual phenomena doesn't happen with all stars, only a few. Since in FET the stars are small and close to the earth and in constant motion, it stands to reason that some stars might be slightly wobbly in their motion.

Again, it's not so much that the stars wobble, it's that they wobble out of sync from what would be expected if the earth were stationary.