Everything Wrong with FET

Ok, let me just say from the start that I am RE. Firmly so. But if you could present solid evidence, FErs, in your favor, then I may just believe you. Also, please don't reference FAQ, because I have read it many times.

First of all, let me just say that the amount of work required to pull off this "hoax" of a round earth would be far greater than the fiscal benefit of doing such. Imagine all the photos to fake, sets to build, mapmakers to bribe, astronauts to brainwash, and tricks to pull. And what would they get out of it? Almost nothing.

Now let's dive into the problems of a flat earth. Everybody with any brains at all knows that on a perfectly clear day, looking out over the ocean, you can see the mast of a boat coming toward you before the body. This can only be the case in a round earth. Think about it. Also, because the earth is round, on that perfectly clear day, you can see no farther with a telescope than you can with the naked eye. If the earth were flat, you should be able to see all the way to the ice walls/dams.

Now I'm sure this has been brought up before, but what about Foucault's pendulum? The pendulum that demonstrates the earth's rotations? Are all of those fake? Are they all part of the conspiracy?

And what about the sun? I saw how they explained it in FAQ, which still makes no sense. Every evening, the sun appears to "set" below the horizon, and if the FE model of the world holds, this would mean that the sun somehow goes below the earth. Now please don't give me that bs about the sun being too far away to see, you and I both know that's ridiculous. By the FE model, when the sun is below the earth, all of the earth is dark. And we all know that isn't true. Half is dark while the other half is light. Explain that, please.

Also, about not ever being able to reach the speed of light, that's junk science. Particles have been made to go 99 percent that speed, and if they were physically able to accelerate more, they would reach the speed of light. The speed of light, 186,000 MPH roughly, is a fixed speed, that would be reached if the earth were to accelerate as FErs propose it does.

I have many more concerns with FET, but don't have time to right them down. Answer these please!

Thanks!

You are obviously lying about reading the FAQ.  Either that, or you just have reading and comprehension difficulties.  The FAQ does not say that the sun goes under the Earth.  It goes in circles above the Earth.  There is even a diagram of how this works in the FAQ.  Where did you get that it goes beneath the Earth?

If that is the case, what creates the illusion that the sun sets? Otherwise it would just fade in the distance. That explanation is crazy

Perspective makes it look like it is getting close to the horizon.  After that, it is just too far away to see.  Light can not penetrate through an infinite distance of air.  Air is not perfectly transparent. 

Well then how come it doesn't fade into the distance. It is incredibly bright, and then it is gone. What is the reason for that? How come it doesn't get dimmer and dimmer? That makes no sense.

Also, what about my other questions? Do you have answers to those? Let's hope they're better than the sun answer you gave me. If anyone wants to back me up, that would be great.

But, it does get dimmer and dimmer.  The sun does not act like a light bulb and just turn off at dusk.  The light gets dim and eventually stops reaching you.  Have you never been outside during the sunset?  What do you think twilight is? 

Yet it makes no sense to say that you would suddenly just stop seeing the sun. IF your perspective thing is true, you should see the whole sun, getting lower and lower and smaller and smaller, yet never actually dipping below the horizon. And about twilight, I suggest you look up what 99.9 percent of the world agrees it is called before getting my opinion.

And will someone please, please answer my other questions? Or did I stump you?

Yet it makes no sense to say that you would suddenly just stop seeing the sun. IF your perspective thing is true, you should see the whole sun, getting lower and lower and smaller and smaller, yet never actually dipping below the horizon. And about twilight, I suggest you look up what 99.9 percent of the world agrees it is called before getting my opinion.

And will someone please, please answer my other questions? Or did I stump you?

Mountains often fade as you drive away from them. 

Also, which question do you want an answer to?

Look at my original post. 

Yes, you asked several questions.  I answered one already.  Which one do you want me to answer next?

You didn't do a great job, but whatever.

How bout the one about the earth accelerating constantly, never slowing down, only speeding up, and yet never reaching the speed of light? I want to know a little more about that. Anyone else who would like to pitch in is welcome.

But, it does get dimmer and dimmer.  The sun does not act like a light bulb and just turn off at dusk.  The light gets dim and eventually stops reaching you.  Have you never been outside during the sunset?  What do you think twilight is?

Yeah, but it also appears to drop below the horizon. So the argument that it gets dimmer because it is below the horizon is a lot more compelling than the argument that it only appears to drop below the horizon, and instead it really gets smaller in size and fades away....because we never see this happen.

The zetetic approach says the Suns drops below the plane of the disk -- this is what we see every evening. We need to first explain THAT observation. Until we do, nothing that relies on its explanation will make sense.

You didn't do a great job, but whatever.

How bout the one about the earth accelerating constantly, never slowing down, only speeding up, and yet never reaching the speed of light? I want to know a little more about that. Anyone else who would like to pitch in is welcome.

You need to use the composition law for velocities for special relativity.  Speed is relative.  Don't use the same same formulas for speed that we can use here on Earth.

Quote from: jroa on November 08, 2013, 06:46:14 PM

But, it does get dimmer and dimmer.  The sun does not act like a light bulb and just turn off at dusk.  The light gets dim and eventually stops reaching you.  Have you never been outside during the sunset?  What do you think twilight is?

Yeah, but it also appears to drop below the horizon. So the argument that it gets dimmer because it is below the horizon is a lot more compelling than the argument that it only appears to drop below the horizon, and instead it really gets smaller in size and fades away....because we never see this happen.

The zetetic approach says the Suns drops below the plane of the disk -- this is what we see every evening. We need to first explain THAT observation. Until we do, nothing that relies on its explanation will make sense.

We know that the sun does not actually drop below the horizon because of time zones.  It is midnight somewhere on Earth and noon somewhere else.  So, we know that the sun never actually goes below the horizon.

Perspective and atmospheric distortion works out perfectly well to explain why the sun appears to go below the horizon. 

Quote from: Skye H on November 08, 2013, 07:16:30 PM

You didn't do a great job, but whatever.

How bout the one about the earth accelerating constantly, never slowing down, only speeding up, and yet never reaching the speed of light? I want to know a little more about that. Anyone else who would like to pitch in is welcome.

You need to use the composition law for velocities for special relativity.  Speed is relative.  Don't use the same same formulas for speed that we can use here on Earth.

I think the point is that in special relativity, in order to keep something accelerating at 9.8 FOR US, the acceleration provided must become greater and greater. This is what special relativity says. It is precisely BECAUSE of the relative speed that the UA must be variable.

Here, this is the formula.



Notice that force is nowhere in that formula.  Plug in what ever numbers you want.  Speed will never be greater than the speed of light.

Here, this is the formula.



Notice that force is nowhere in that formula.  Plug in what ever numbers you want.  Speed will never be greater than the speed of light.

E=gamma*mc^2

gamma = 1/[sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)-1]

These are the relevant equations. As you increase v, you increase the needed energy to accelerate the Earth. The force comes in by noting that E = F*d, where d is the distance over which the Earth has been pushed.

You see? It is not that your equation is wrong, it just doesn't explain HOW the acceleration must come about, or what its properties are. Or that its force must constantly increase to produce the same acceleration.

We must account for this. A variable UA is needed. If UA = constant, then the Earth will slow down.

Speed, like voltage, is relative.  A car moving 60 mph away away from you is measured relative to you.  A car moving 60 mph in the opposite direction is moving 120 mph relative to the first car, but 60 mph relative to you.

Does relative make sense now? 

Speed, like voltage, is relative.  A car moving 60 mph away away from you is measured relative to you.  A car moving 60 mph in the opposite direction is moving 120 mph relative to the first car, but 60 mph relative to you.

Does relative make sense now?

Haha, well I know what relative means! I mean goodness, I am pretty fluent in the theory of RELATIVITY. Your explanation using cars is, like, not even Einsteinian. Your car example is relative motion that was understood by Galileo, and is applicable in non-relativistic dynamics.

Now I will tell you that a non-relativistic dynamics understanding of relative motion is insufficient to understand relative motion in special relativity. That is why it is called "special." because it is different than the understanding of basic relative motion with things like cars.

Your explanation using cars is, like, not even Einsteinian. Your car example is relative motion that was understood by Galileo, and is applicable in non-relativistic dynamics.

You seemed to have problems, and I did not know how simple I needed to start.  My apologies if this was too simple.

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on November 08, 2013, 07:59:50 PM

Your explanation using cars is, like, not even Einsteinian. Your car example is relative motion that was understood by Galileo, and is applicable in non-relativistic dynamics.

You seemed to have problems, and I did not know how simple I needed to start.  My apologies if this was too simple.

I appreciate it. Basically, your formula just says that the speed of the Earth will never be greater than the speed of light. I agree. RE science agrees. The part that I disagreed with was that UA cannot produce a CONSTANT effect and keep the earth moving at a CONSTANT acceleration. You see? The UA must increase as time goes on. Otherwise the acceleration felt on the Earth will begin to DECREASE. This is what special relativity says. I promise.

I can't say for sure that the acceleration has never changed.  It could be that we can not detect the deceleration because it is too small.  Perhaps it is even speeding up at a very slight rate.  We can only guess at what is causing the acceleration, but we can detect it.

I can't say for sure that the acceleration has never changed.  It could be that we can not detect the deceleration because it is too small.  Perhaps it is even speeding up at a very slight rate.  We can only guess at what is causing the acceleration, but we can detect it.

Yes this is true. The acceleration could be changing at a very small rate. The question is then: if the UA is truly constant, and given that this will decrease the acceleration we feel, would the change in acceleration be large enough for us to notice? This is a very important question. Can we check this?

There is a way, but you need to assume an age for the Earth (or a time that the Earth has been accelerating). If you assume the Earth has been accelerating (by a constant UA) for 2000 years, then the acceleration we feel would have decreased by about 90% in that time. This is certainly measurable. We would weigh 90% less! Now of course, all that this means is we weigh 90% less than we WOULD HAVE weighed 2000 years ago. Ha! I guess one cannot measure this.

But you see the point, right? If you believe the Earth has been around for substantially longer than 2000 years, the calculation becomes ridiculous. It means that in order for us to feel 9.8 today, when the Earth first started feeling "gravity," it would have needed to be accelerating SO FAST that nothing would be able to live here.

A lot of FE'ers do not realize this. A constant UA is very bad. A variable UA is much better.

Quote from: jroa on November 08, 2013, 08:12:43 PM

I can't say for sure that the acceleration has never changed.  It could be that we can not detect the deceleration because it is too small.  Perhaps it is even speeding up at a very slight rate.  We can only guess at what is causing the acceleration, but we can detect it.

Yes this is true. The acceleration could be changing at a very small rate. The question is then: if the UA is truly constant, and given that this will decrease the acceleration we feel, would the change in acceleration be large enough for us to notice? This is a very important question. Can we check this?

There is a way, but you need to assume an age for the Earth (or a time that the Earth has been accelerating). If you assume the Earth has been accelerating (by a constant UA) for 2000 years, then the acceleration we feel would have decreased by about 90% in that time. This is certainly measurable. We would weigh 90% less! Now of course, all that this means is we weigh 90% less than we WOULD HAVE weighed 2000 years ago. Ha! I guess one cannot measure this.

But you see the point, right? If you believe the Earth has been around for substantially longer than 2000 years, the calculation becomes ridiculous. It means that in order for us to feel 9.8 today, when the Earth first started feeling "gravity," it would have needed to be accelerating SO FAST that nothing would be able to live here.

A lot of FE'ers do not realize this. A constant UA is very bad. A variable UA is much better.

I really don't see exactly what you are getting at, but I will play along.  If the dinosaurs were around 65 million years ago, and they were very big, then maybe we evolved as smaller animals because the gravity effect has changed?  Maybe that is what killed the dinosaurs.  They were just too big for their bodies? 

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on November 08, 2013, 08:30:36 PM

Quote from: jroa on November 08, 2013, 08:12:43 PM

I can't say for sure that the acceleration has never changed.  It could be that we can not detect the deceleration because it is too small.  Perhaps it is even speeding up at a very slight rate.  We can only guess at what is causing the acceleration, but we can detect it.

Yes this is true. The acceleration could be changing at a very small rate. The question is then: if the UA is truly constant, and given that this will decrease the acceleration we feel, would the change in acceleration be large enough for us to notice? This is a very important question. Can we check this?

There is a way, but you need to assume an age for the Earth (or a time that the Earth has been accelerating). If you assume the Earth has been accelerating (by a constant UA) for 2000 years, then the acceleration we feel would have decreased by about 90% in that time. This is certainly measurable. We would weigh 90% less! Now of course, all that this means is we weigh 90% less than we WOULD HAVE weighed 2000 years ago. Ha! I guess one cannot measure this.

But you see the point, right? If you believe the Earth has been around for substantially longer than 2000 years, the calculation becomes ridiculous. It means that in order for us to feel 9.8 today, when the Earth first started feeling "gravity," it would have needed to be accelerating SO FAST that nothing would be able to live here.

A lot of FE'ers do not realize this. A constant UA is very bad. A variable UA is much better.

I really don't see exactly what you are getting at, but I will play along.  If the dinosaurs were around 65 million years ago, and they were very big, then maybe we evolved as smaller animals because the gravity effect has changed?  Maybe that is what killed the dinosaurs.  They were just too big for their bodies?

Hmmm. Well back then (assuming a constant UA) the weight would have been huge. The dinosaurs would have been crushed. So I do not think they could have existed in the first place. Remember: a constant UA means weight DECREASES with time? Understand?

I thought a we were assuming a variable acceleration?  Now I am confused.

I thought a we were assuming a variable acceleration?  Now I am confused.

Yes, this is tricky. What special relativity says is that if the UA is constant, then the acceleration WE feel decreases over time. You see? The UA must provide a force to move the Earth, but the EFFECT of this force changes from our perspective, it changes what we feel. Now I know this is counter-intuitive, but that is why special relativity stayed undiscovered for so long. People did not think to look for this, precisely because it is so counter-intuitive.

I do not expect anyone to grasp SR quickly. It took me years of self-learning to understand. But I do know it pretty well now.

Basically, the reason why there is a difference between what the UA does and what we feel is due to difference reference frames: one is the reference frame of UA, which MUST BE DIFFERENT from the reference frame of the Earth. Now you already know that different reference frames make things look and act different from different points of view: you even described this in basic terms using your car example. In SR the way things change becomes more complicated is all. It is definitely NOT easy to grasp. But it is graspable.

Ok, I can see this is going nowhere, so let's move on to the topic of the mast. Any FErs know why you see the mast of a boat before the body when it comes towards you?

Ok, I can see this is going nowhere, so let's move on to the topic of the mast. Any FErs know why you see the mast of a boat before the body when it comes towards you?

Well, the standard response in FET literature is the theory of vanishing perspective. This theory, however, is inconsistent with observations. If you use binoculars, then the vanished perspective should be restored, as you have changed the optical distance to achieve 1 arcsecond. It of course is not.

I tried asking Tom Bishop about this, but he never responded to me.

Presently, I know of no FE explanation of the ship effect that does not rely on a "bendy light" description. 

If you use binoculars, then the vanished perspective should be restored, as you have changed the optical distance to achieve 1 arcsecond. It of course is not.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?