What fundamental error does the RET have?

It has been more than a week now since I joined the forum to discuss about the flath earth theory. I would like to make up the balance so far about the on-going debate. The FE defenders insist the earth is flat and all evidence suggesting it is a sphere is either incomplete or is part of of a conspiracy (space agencies for example), therefore the evidence that do match real life observations are invalid.

On the other hand, the FET is incomplete and cannot agree on fundamental issues like for example what the sun is like and how it behaves.
I even showed some fundamental errors myself with the FET that, so far, has not been addressed or explained by different theories. Errors which no longer exist when using a sphere as starting point. (See my videos for example).

The debate is on-going as I said, but focusses on the details about either theory. Let me ask you this question, because it is the starting point of the whole debate.

What fundamental error did you find with the RET that does not match real life observations? I do not mean the experiment with the rope and the ship, as this has been addressed and explained by the RET already. Or let me ask the question differently. On what point(s) does the RET contradict itself? Where does the need arise to investigate a flat earth theory? I do not mean to halt anyone here. Feel free to investigate whatever you want. I am interested though, in what motivates you.

I would like only to have answers to my question, so no debate here! Keep it on-topic.

First of many is solid to air 1038 mph rotation in unison. No matter what the explanations are for it, it's wrong and it proves the earth is not at the very least, rotating at that speed.

All right, first of many...any more you know of?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2013, 06:57:46 AM

First of many is solid to air 1038 mph rotation in unison. No matter what the explanations are for it, it's wrong and it proves the earth is not at the very least, rotating at that speed.

All right, first of many...any more you know of?

It is impossible to have a full moon with the Copernican model. I know full moons exist, I can see them and my calendar tells me when they occur, but if the moon is a ball, its not possible to have a full moon because the earth is in the way. The diagram below should actually be showing a lunar eclipse. Not a full moon.


The exact same set up and this time the globularists pretend that its responsible for absolutely no light on the moon.


Shady stuff.

It is not possible to make perfectly flat flaw-free glass using a liquid with which to make the glass flat. Yet somehow glass manufacturers achieve this.

Float Glass is a term for perfectly flat, clear glass (basic product). The term "float" glass derives from the production method, introduced in the UK by Sir Alastair Pilkington in the late 1950's, by which 90% of today's flat glass is manufactured. 

The molten glass then flows from the glass furnace into a bath of molten tin in a continuous ribbon. The glass, which is highly viscous, and the tin, which is very fluid, do not mix and the contact surface between these two materials is perfectly flat.

http://www.glassonweb.com/glassmanual/topics/index/float.htm

Perfectly flat? On a liquid? Ergo the earth must be flat.

I could give dozens of such examples. Asking for one or two is silly.

I could give dozens of such examples. Asking for one or two is silly.

Please give as many as you could. I am here to learn about the fundamental errors of the RET you (as a community) found.

How big is the biggest sheet of float glass ever made? And does 0.000009 degrees per metre mean it cannot be called perfectly flat? Because that's how much it would curve by.

As for the full moon, you're right, it's never exactly full due to not actually being in an exact straight line with the sun and earth (except during a lunar eclipse), but it's close enough that its impossible to tell the difference by just looking at it.

Quote from: Thork on May 11, 2013, 07:56:28 AM

I could give dozens of such examples. Asking for one or two is silly.

Please give as many as you could. I am here to learn about the fundamental errors of the RET you (as a community) found.

I have 16,000 posts. My objections are too many to document. The sheer weight of evidence against a round earth is why we think its flat. Not just one thing. Have a browse through the forum, read FE literature.

Look, below is a document with 100 proofs straight away. And I have lots of unique ones of my own.
http://www.mrsciguy.com/documents/proofs.doc
^ hopefully that should give you something to be getting on with. I think many of those reasons are weak myself, but at least its a collection grouped together for you to look at.

How big is the biggest sheet of float glass ever made? And does 0.000009 degrees per metre mean it cannot be called perfectly flat? Because that's how much it would curve by.

As for the full moon, you're right, it's never exactly full due to not actually being in an exact straight line with the sun and earth (except during a lunar eclipse), but it's close enough that its impossible to tell the difference by just looking at it.

So the glass manufacturers are all liars and we'll brush the full moon thing under the carpet because it is annoying and doesn't fit the RE model. Confirmation bias much?

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 11, 2013, 07:30:47 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2013, 06:57:46 AM

First of many is solid to air 1038 mph rotation in unison. No matter what the explanations are for it, it's wrong and it proves the earth is not at the very least, rotating at that speed.

All right, first of many...any more you know of?

It is impossible to have a full moon with the Copernican model. I know full moons exist, I can see them and my calendar tells me when they occur, but if the moon is a ball, its not possible to have a full moon because the earth is in the way. The diagram below should actually be showing a lunar eclipse. Not a full moon.


The exact same set up and this time the globularists pretend that its responsible for absolutely no light on the moon.


Shady stuff.

The moons orbit is not on the same plane as the ecliptic plane.
So only when the moon's orbit and ecliptic orbit intersect do you have a "full moon" in the Earth's Umbra.

Its not a full moon then, is it?

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 11, 2013, 07:30:47 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2013, 06:57:46 AM

First of many is solid to air 1038 mph rotation in unison. No matter what the explanations are for it, it's wrong and it proves the earth is not at the very least, rotating at that speed.

All right, first of many...any more you know of?

It is impossible to have a full moon with the Copernican model. I know full moons exist, I can see them and my calendar tells me when they occur, but if the moon is a ball, its not possible to have a full moon because the earth is in the way. The diagram below should actually be showing a lunar eclipse. Not a full moon.


The exact same set up and this time the globularists pretend that its responsible for absolutely no light on the moon.


Shady stuff.

Those diagrams are not even close to scale. It is difficult to make a picture to scale with ms paint, but at least try a little harder. I made one in about 10 minutes, that may not be perfect, but I think it does a better job.
http://i.imgur.com/56WsrH6.png?1
Scale is a bit off, the earth and moon should be about 60% smaller, which should only drive the point home even more.
If I had made them that small it would have been hard to see them, and the picture was already 90,000 pixels long so I couldn't go bigger without freezing up my computer and has difficulty loading as it is.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 11, 2013, 08:08:24 AM

Quote from: Thork on May 11, 2013, 07:56:28 AM

I could give dozens of such examples. Asking for one or two is silly.

Please give as many as you could. I am here to learn about the fundamental errors of the RET you (as a community) found.

I have 16,000 posts. My objections are too many to document. The sheer weight of evidence against a round earth is why we think its flat. Not just one thing. Have a browse through the forum, read FE literature.

Look, below is a document with 100 proofs straight away. And I have lots of unique ones of my own.
http://www.mrsciguy.com/documents/proofs.doc
^ hopefully that should give you something to be getting on with. I think many of those reasons are weak myself, but at least its a collection grouped together for you to look at.

Quote from: Scintific Method on May 11, 2013, 08:12:57 AM

How big is the biggest sheet of float glass ever made? And does 0.000009 degrees per metre mean it cannot be called perfectly flat? Because that's how much it would curve by.

As for the full moon, you're right, it's never exactly full due to not actually being in an exact straight line with the sun and earth (except during a lunar eclipse), but it's close enough that its impossible to tell the difference by just looking at it.

So the glass manufacturers are all liars and we'll brush the full moon thing under the carpet because it is annoying and doesn't fit the RE model. Confirmation bias much?

Thork, either your last post is a joke of you are. I'm inclined to think the former since you seem like a smart guy. So.... Good one!   I had a nice laugh.

Quote from: Thork on May 11, 2013, 07:45:39 AM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 11, 2013, 07:30:47 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2013, 06:57:46 AM

First of many is solid to air 1038 mph rotation in unison. No matter what the explanations are for it, it's wrong and it proves the earth is not at the very least, rotating at that speed.

All right, first of many...any more you know of?

It is impossible to have a full moon with the Copernican model. I know full moons exist, I can see them and my calendar tells me when they occur, but if the moon is a ball, its not possible to have a full moon because the earth is in the way. The diagram below should actually be showing a lunar eclipse. Not a full moon.


The exact same set up and this time the globularists pretend that its responsible for absolutely no light on the moon.


Shady stuff.

Those diagrams are not even close to scale. It is difficult to make a picture to scale with ms paint, but at least try a little harder. I made one in about 10 minutes, that may not be perfect, but I think it does a better job.
http://i.imgur.com/56WsrH6.png?1
Scale is a bit off, the earth and moon should be about 60% smaller, which should only drive the point home even more.
If I had made them that small it would have been hard to see them, and the picture was already 90,000 pixels long so I couldn't go bigger without freezing up my computer and has difficulty loading as it is.

But in your diagram, you've moved the moon up. If you are stood on earth, you'd see a little of the dark shadow at the bottom of the moon and not all of the surface at the top which is exposed to the sunlight. In other words, you've just proven a full moon is impossible with round earth theory. So thank you.

Thork, I sincerely hope you are joking. The sheer distance from the Earth to the Sun in RE, as well as its size, will cause a "full moon" to be maybe 0.000001 degrees less than an actual full moon. It is so close to one, it is not perceptible to our eyes as not being a full moon.

As for float glass, it is not "perfectly flat". Nothing is. Nobody in the scientific community can claim something is perfectly flat, especially something like production glass. It is flat for our purposes.

Perfectly flat? On a liquid? Ergo the earth must be flat.

Um, considering they are not making glass that is 10 miles* long, than yes, the Earth does not curve enough for any bend in the glass to be detected.

Seriously, dude. It's like you adopted Skepti's brain.

*Note: 10 miles is an exaggeration.

Thork, I sincerely hope you are joking. The sheer distance from the Earth to the Sun in RE, as well as its size, will cause a "full moon" to be maybe 0.000001 degrees less than an actual full moon.

I get fed up with all this random guessing and treating that as gospel. I know the actual number and you are miles off. Go do some research. If the moon has to be a staggering 5 degrees from the ecliptic on 'full moon' night, there is no "maybe 0.0000001 degrees less than an actual full moon" is there? You are making stupid guesses and its you that seems rash and foolish.

Observe below. Its called a citation.

The Moon's orbital plane about the Earth is inclined by 5 degrees with respect to the Earth's orbital plane about the Sun (the ecliptic plane).

As for float glass, it is not "perfectly flat". Nothing is. Nobody in the scientific community can claim something is perfectly flat, especially something like production glass. It is flat for our purposes.

Quote

Perfectly flat? On a liquid? Ergo the earth must be flat.

Um, considering they are not making glass that is 10 miles* long, than yes, the Earth does not curve enough for any bend in the glass to be detected.

Seriously, dude. It's like you adopted Skepti's brain.

*Note: 10 miles is an exaggeration.

Actually the glass is a continuous process so they can cut it to any length you order. 10 miles if you want. I'm not disputing the term 'flat'. I'm not unreasonable. The term all glass manufacturers use is 'perfectly flat, flaw-free glass'. Its not unreasonable for me to expect it then to be perfectly flat and free of flaws. Not perfectly lenticular flaw-free glass.

Again, you are asking for examples to prove the difference between a round earth and a flat one. The differences are negligible but every time I show you where science and engineering use flat earth and not round, you want to claim its some kind of rounding error or tolerance.

Everything is built and designed as though earth is flat. That should be the moment you think "Something is not right here. I've been lied to."

Every glass manufacturer Thork?  And you hate people who exaggerate?  Pot meet kettle!

Every time we show you a technology or method using RE calculations, a conspiracy is invoked or a pseudoscientific theory is presented. Surely our position is far more reasonable?

Quote from: darknavyseal on May 11, 2013, 01:11:15 PM

Thork, I sincerely hope you are joking. The sheer distance from the Earth to the Sun in RE, as well as its size, will cause a "full moon" to be maybe 0.000001 degrees less than an actual full moon.

I get fed up with all this random guessing and treating that as gospel. I know the actual number and you are miles off. Go do some research. If the moon has to be a staggering 5 degrees from the ecliptic on 'full moon' night, there is no "maybe 0.0000001 degrees less than an actual full moon" is there? You are making stupid guesses and its you that seems rash and foolish.

Observe below. Its called a citation.

Quote from: http://www.fact-index.com/m/mo/moon.html

The Moon's orbital plane about the Earth is inclined by 5 degrees with respect to the Earth's orbital plane about the Sun (the ecliptic plane).

Quote from: darknavyseal on May 11, 2013, 01:11:15 PM

As for float glass, it is not "perfectly flat". Nothing is. Nobody in the scientific community can claim something is perfectly flat, especially something like production glass. It is flat for our purposes.

Quote

Perfectly flat? On a liquid? Ergo the earth must be flat.

Um, considering they are not making glass that is 10 miles* long, than yes, the Earth does not curve enough for any bend in the glass to be detected.

Seriously, dude. It's like you adopted Skepti's brain.

*Note: 10 miles is an exaggeration.

Actually the glass is a continuous process so they can cut it to any length you order. 10 miles if you want. I'm not disputing the term 'flat'. I'm not unreasonable. The term all glass manufacturers use is 'perfectly flat, flaw-free glass'. Its not unreasonable for me to expect it then to be perfectly flat and free of flaws. Not perfectly lenticular flaw-free glass.

Again, you are asking for examples to prove the difference between a round earth and a flat one. The differences are negligible but every time I show you where science and engineering use flat earth and not round, you want to claim its some kind of rounding error or tolerance.

Everything is built and designed as though earth is flat. That should be the moment you think "Something is not right here. I've been lied to."

Flat in your perception is that it is perfectly, perfectly flat. Nothing is perfect and even glass is not as flat as flat can be. Namely 0,0 heigth difference between each ends. There is an infinite number behind the decimal, so even if the glass is 0,01 mm curved you will not be able to see it, yet it is curved. You should stop looking at the advertisement of a glass manufacturer of "perfect" flat as perfectly flat, as the "perfectly flat" the glass manufacturer advertises with is only perceptional flatness. You are not going to be able to tell the difference.

To make you better understand it, here is a link to the roundest object on earth. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14229-roundest-objects-in-the-world-created.html

Even this "perfect" round shape appears perfectly round to your eye, there are still "rough spots" that stick out no more than 0.3 nanometres.
Yet will you be able to tell the difference between that "perfect" sphere and this billiard ball http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd320/AnitoKid_2007/billiards-101/9-Ball.jpg

I can't, and I assume you can't either.

Every glass manufacturer Thork?  And you hate people who exaggerate?  Pot meet kettle!

Every time we show you a technology or method using RE calculations, a conspiracy is invoked or a pseudoscientific theory is presented. Surely our position is far more reasonable?

Every float glass manufacturer, yes. That is the industry term. Perfectly flat, flaw free glass. Again, you've jumped onto me accusing me of all sorts and done no homework.

Your position is to ignore all discrepancies that show a clear MATHEMATICAL difference and chalk them up to tolerances and marketing lies. That's a bit lame. A video can be faked. Maths can't be. And its the maths and science that is always on our side. This is how I know the earth must be flat and anything that anything NASA make for the public is a carefully constructed hoax.

The term all glass manufacturers use is 'perfectly flat, flaw-free glass'. Its not unreasonable for me to expect it then to be perfectly flat and free of flaws. Not perfectly lenticular flaw-free glass.

I suppose that you also expect random hot women to rip your clothes off when you wear body spray as well, don't you?

Quote from: Rama Set on May 11, 2013, 01:27:00 PM

Every glass manufacturer Thork?  And you hate people who exaggerate?  Pot meet kettle!

Every time we show you a technology or method using RE calculations, a conspiracy is invoked or a pseudoscientific theory is presented. Surely our position is far more reasonable?

Every float glass manufacturer, yes. That is the industry term. Perfectly flat, flaw free glass. Again, you've jumped onto me accusing me of all sorts and done no homework.

Your position is to ignore all discrepancies that show a clear MATHEMATICAL difference and chalk them up to tolerances and marketing lies. That's a bit lame. A video can be faked. Maths can't be. And its the maths and science that is always on our side. This is how I know the earth must be flat and anything that anything NASA make for the public is a carefully constructed hoax.

If every float glass manufacturer makes that claim why does this one never say that?
http://www.cardinalcorp.com/products/float-glass/

Saying a full moon is full enough to fool the human eye, but not mathematics is not a proof of  Earthly shape. Because construction can behave as if the Earth is flat is not the same as the Earth actually being flat. But you are cute when you are indignant.

Quote from: Thork on May 11, 2013, 01:37:41 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 11, 2013, 01:27:00 PM

Every glass manufacturer Thork?  And you hate people who exaggerate?  Pot meet kettle!

Every time we show you a technology or method using RE calculations, a conspiracy is invoked or a pseudoscientific theory is presented. Surely our position is far more reasonable?

Every float glass manufacturer, yes. That is the industry term. Perfectly flat, flaw free glass. Again, you've jumped onto me accusing me of all sorts and done no homework.

Your position is to ignore all discrepancies that show a clear MATHEMATICAL difference and chalk them up to tolerances and marketing lies. That's a bit lame. A video can be faked. Maths can't be. And its the maths and science that is always on our side. This is how I know the earth must be flat and anything that anything NASA make for the public is a carefully constructed hoax.

If every float glass manufacturer makes that claim why does this one never say that?
http://www.cardinalcorp.com/products/float-glass/

How do you know they never said it? Because it doesn't appear right now on the first thing you looked at?

ITS AN INDUSTRY DEFINITION.

The float process is renowned for making perfectly flat, flaw-free glass.

All float glass has to be perfectly flat glass or it is not "float glass".

Examples

Float Glass is a term for perfectly flat, clear glass (basic product).

Guardian Float Glass is perfectly flat and has virtually parallel surfaces.

Not flat. not more or less flat. not nearly flat. Perfectly flat.

Being without defect or blemish

Having a horizontal surface without a slope, tilt, or curvature.

*Thork got bored and wandered off ....

Please read the linked paper which mentions float glass following the curvature of the Earth.

http://www.safti.com/articles/visual_distortions.htm

Everything is manufactured to a tolerance, you should know that Thork. "Perfectly flat" in this context likely means something like "within 0.001 of a degree per metre". Well, 0.000009 is "within" 0.001.

Oh, and next time there's a full moon, have a look through a telescope, take a photo too if you can, and compare what you see with a perfect circle. You might be able to spot the unlit edge if it's the full 5 degrees.

Quote from: darknavyseal on May 11, 2013, 01:11:15 PM

Thork, I sincerely hope you are joking. The sheer distance from the Earth to the Sun in RE, as well as its size, will cause a "full moon" to be maybe 0.000001 degrees less than an actual full moon.

I get fed up with all this random guessing and treating that as gospel. I know the actual number and you are miles off. Go do some research. If the moon has to be a staggering 5 degrees from the ecliptic on 'full moon' night, there is no "maybe 0.0000001 degrees less than an actual full moon" is there? You are making stupid guesses and its you that seems rash and foolish.

Observe below. Its called a citation.

Quote from: http://www.fact-index.com/m/mo/moon.html

The Moon's orbital plane about the Earth is inclined by 5 degrees with respect to the Earth's orbital plane about the Sun (the ecliptic plane).

Even so, considering the moon at an incline of 5º at a distance of 384,400km the difference in angular subtense is minuscule. The dark portion of the moon now viewable is indeed over 150km, but it's at the edge of a sphere, not dead on. So we can use this distance and the radius of the moon to find what we are actually looking at; the sagitta, which is about 6.6km. Latitude of the observer does have a slight affect; the final calculations of the angle subtended by this dark part varies between  0.003º and 0.0001º (depending on if you are at Earth's south or north pole). The human eye has a threshold of about 0.01º. Sorry, there is literally no discernible difference.

I can provide diagrams and maths if you are having trouble understanding this very simple concept that 5º inclination does not subtend an additional 5º to the observer, indeed the moon itself only subtends about 0.52º.

First of many is solid to air 1038 mph rotation in unison. No matter what the explanations are for it, it's wrong and it proves the earth is not at the very least, rotating at that speed.

FE model of UA requires a solid to be ramming into air at millions of miles per hour, you don't have a problem with that?
"But the earth and atmolayer are moving at the same speed." That is a good argument for the question you posed against the RE model, which in fact they do move at the same speed. But on the FE model they don't! The earth is accelerating, they are not moving at the same speed.

OK, so you are at the north pole of the RE model. Is there a 1000 MPH tornado? NO,  up there the rate the earth spins is 1 revolution per 24 hours same as everywhere else. Air is made out of matter, and has inertia just like all other matter. If the air was motionless and the Earth just began to spin at 1 revolution per 24 hours, then yes, the inertia of air would hold it in place and the earth would tear through it until friction overcomes the inertia and gives the air roughly the same angular speed as the earth. Instead we have a situation where the air already has this angular momentum and doesn't need to speed up or slow down, except maybe in the upper atmosphere where we get the Coriolis effect.

I know it's more complicated than saying the Earth can't have a solid / air interface over 1000 miles per hour. But, actually consider the physics involved, it's not impossible, for the same reason its not impossible for someone to stand at the equator without being flung off.

Scepti does not believe in UA, he believes in a force inherent in mass that makes them fall down to the Earth. But don't call it gravity, he gets angsty.

Your position is to ignore all discrepancies that show a clear MATHEMATICAL difference and chalk them up to tolerances and marketing lies. That's a bit lame. A video can be faked. Maths can't be. And its the maths and science that is always on our side. This is how I know the earth must be flat and anything that anything NASA make for the public is a carefully constructed hoax.

It's funny that you mention mathematics, because as I remember it, you suck at it.

You did some calculations on this very same topic a while back:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,42558.msg1055809.html#msg1055809

which is shockingly flawed, and unsurprisingly of course, your flaw is skewed in the way as to support FET. And here was my rebuttal as to why it's wrong, but I think by that point you were already chewed up and spit out (even though you don't want to admit it):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,42558.msg1182920.html#msg1182920

Quote from: Thork on May 11, 2013, 01:37:41 PM

Your position is to ignore all discrepancies that show a clear MATHEMATICAL difference and chalk them up to tolerances and marketing lies. That's a bit lame. A video can be faked. Maths can't be. And its the maths and science that is always on our side. This is how I know the earth must be flat and anything that anything NASA make for the public is a carefully constructed hoax.

It's funny that you mention mathematics, because as I remember it, you suck at it.

You did some calculations on this very same topic a while back:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,42558.msg1055809.html#msg1055809

which is shockingly flawed, and unsurprisingly of course, your flaw is skewed in the way as to support FET. And here was my rebuttal as to why it's wrong, but I think by that point you were already chewed up and spit out (even though you don't want to admit it):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,42558.msg1182920.html#msg1182920

He muffed up this thread pretty poorly too.  Perhaps the aeronautics degree came from cutting out the backs of cereal boxes?

He has an aeronautics degree? That's embarrassing.

Wait, seriously? You have to do physics to get those degrees, and looking at some of his maths, I'm finding it hard to believe that he passed them, let alone done them at all.

From the topic link I posted earlier, he writes

=6371.00007848061480 km
So my error over a kilometre piece of glass is 6371.00007848061480 km - 6371 = 0.00007848061480 km

Look at that, there are like 10 significant figures there. He's also totally ignoring error tolerances. This guy didn't do physics.

The fundamental error with the round earth model is that the earth isn't round.