What is acceptable evidence?

  • 25 Replies
  • 4088 Views
What is acceptable evidence?
« on: January 16, 2015, 02:20:12 PM »
I there any experiment that can be performed to test the validity of FET?  What evidence would an FEer accept that RET is correct?  I can think of lots of experiments to show RET, but what is the point if they would be discounted out of hand?  If the answer is that absolutely nothing would be accepted as confirmation of RET, then really it is silly do call this a debate forum.

Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2015, 03:06:28 PM »
OK, here is one proposal.  There is a link on the FAQ that points to various sites to show supporting evidence, one of then is:
http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html
They say that Kansas is literally flatter than a pancake.  My proposal is to drive across Kansas with a GPS receiver and record the the latitude/longitude and height of the car.  I will then look at the height difference compared to the first solution, this should give me results similar to the paper.  And since WGS84 uses a reference ellipsoid, I will then compute the North, East and Height difference relative to a flat plane that is normal to the ellipsoid at the start of the journey.  If Kansas is indeed flat, then this result should show little change in height.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2015, 03:07:48 PM »
OK, here is one proposal.  There is a link on the FAQ that points to various sites to show supporting evidence, one of then is:
http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html
They say that Kansas is literally flatter than a pancake.  My proposal is to drive across Kansas with a GPS receiver and record the the latitude/longitude and height of the car.  I will then look at the height difference compared to the first solution, this should give me results similar to the paper.  And since WGS84 uses a reference ellipsoid, I will then compute the North, East and Height difference relative to a flat plane that is normal to the ellipsoid at the start of the journey.  If Kansas is indeed flat, then this result should show little change in height.

You'll just be called a paid shill.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2015, 03:15:00 PM »
OK, here is one proposal.  There is a link on the FAQ that points to various sites to show supporting evidence, one of then is:
http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html
They say that Kansas is literally flatter than a pancake.  My proposal is to drive across Kansas with a GPS receiver and record the the latitude/longitude and height of the car.  I will then look at the height difference compared to the first solution, this should give me results similar to the paper.  And since WGS84 uses a reference ellipsoid, I will then compute the North, East and Height difference relative to a flat plane that is normal to the ellipsoid at the start of the journey.  If Kansas is indeed flat, then this result should show little change in height.

You'll just be called a paid shill.
But you could even do this without me -- one could just get the DEM data used in this Kansas paper.  It is frustrating that FEers look at data that is relative to an ellipsoid, i.e. the ellipsoid height is SUBTRACTED from the height, and they say look, no ellipsoid can be seen in the height.  Ya, that is because it is SUBTRACTED BY DEFAULT!  It is the bloody definition of Lat, Lon, Height!  WTF!

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2015, 03:17:15 PM »
OK, here is one proposal.  There is a link on the FAQ that points to various sites to show supporting evidence, one of then is:
http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html
They say that Kansas is literally flatter than a pancake.  My proposal is to drive across Kansas with a GPS receiver and record the the latitude/longitude and height of the car.  I will then look at the height difference compared to the first solution, this should give me results similar to the paper.  And since WGS84 uses a reference ellipsoid, I will then compute the North, East and Height difference relative to a flat plane that is normal to the ellipsoid at the start of the journey.  If Kansas is indeed flat, then this result should show little change in height.

You'll just be called a paid shill.
But you could even do this without me -- one could just get the DEM data used in this Kansas paper.  It is frustrating that FEers look at data that is relative to an ellipsoid, i.e. the ellipsoid height is SUBTRACTED from the height, and they say look, no ellipsoid can be seen in the height.  Ya, that is because it is SUBTRACTED BY DEFAULT!  It is the bloody definition of Lat, Lon, Height!  WTF!

That feeling of helplessness will pass. :P

I felt it rather keenly when I tried to get them to just look through a telescope and see the ISS with their own eyes. They would just say "Nope, doesn't exist so why should I?"
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2015, 03:30:15 PM »
WGS84 -> RET
FEers trust WGS84 Heights
FEers believe in RET
They just don't know it!  They are like the guy with spaghetti sauce in their face that is in denial, they claim the don't have any RET sauce on their face, but they do!

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2015, 03:34:48 PM »
That feeling of helplessness will pass. :P

The feeling of helplessness is common when putting faith in the Round Earth propaganda. It will only pass once you free your mind and see the truth. Your mind is like a long river and RET is like a dam. It blocks the water from reaching its destination. In this case: the water is neurons and the destination is the brain. Your growth has been stunted, and you will remain like a clueless child until you remove that dam from your river. You can thank me later.
Read the FAQS.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2015, 03:37:36 PM »
That feeling of helplessness will pass. :P

The feeling of helplessness is common when putting faith in the Round Earth propaganda. It will only pass once you free your mind and see the truth. Your mind is like a long river and RET is like a dam. It blocks the water from reaching its destination. In this case: the water is neurons and the destination is the brain. Your growth has been stunted, and you will remain like a clueless child until you remove that dam from your river. You can thank me later.

Tang
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2015, 03:38:08 PM »
That feeling of helplessness will pass. :P

The feeling of helplessness is common when putting faith in the Round Earth propaganda. It will only pass once you free your mind and see the truth. Your mind is like a long river and RET is like a dam. It blocks the water from reaching its destination. In this case: the water is neurons and the destination is the brain. Your growth has been stunted, and you will remain like a clueless child until you remove that dam from your river. You can thank me later.

Tang

Yes, the river of tang.
Read the FAQS.

Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2015, 03:41:10 PM »
That feeling of helplessness will pass. :P

The feeling of helplessness is common when putting faith in the Round Earth propaganda. It will only pass once you free your mind and see the truth. Your mind is like a long river and RET is like a dam. It blocks the water from reaching its destination. In this case: the water is neurons and the destination is the brain. Your growth has been stunted, and you will remain like a clueless child until you remove that dam from your river. You can thank me later.
Oh my, you are a shill prime!  As I remember all my neurons are already in my brain.  You can't even taunt me with a reasoned analogy!  You are aware of the phrase, "Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves." are you not? 

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2015, 03:43:06 PM »
You are aware of the phrase, "Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves." are you not?

I am not dead yet.


Besides, I'm sure you'd love to silence me.
Read the FAQS.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2015, 03:44:46 PM »
You are aware of the phrase, "Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves." are you not?

I am not dead yet.


Besides, I'm sure you'd love to silence me.

You make me giggle.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2015, 03:51:33 PM »
You are aware of the phrase, "Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves." are you not?

I am not dead yet.


Besides, I'm sure you'd love to silence me.
My dear, it is a saying, I don't want you literally dead.  It is just like how when you say someone is 'brain dead', the are not literally dead.  And I don't want your silence, far from it.  I just want you to speak honestly and engage authentically.  It is one think to look and disagree.  It is entirely different to refuse to look and disagree.  As I have said many times, I'm happy to look at any evidence for FET.

?

Sterayt Downs

  • 6
  • Whales know the truth . . . .
Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2015, 06:56:14 PM »
GPSJim, you say you are happy to look at any evidence for FET?  Start with your kitchen floor.  Is it flat?  Does it feel like it is spinning?  Even if you drank too much wine, why does the force attracting you straight perpendicular toward your floor have to be explained by an overcomplicated spherical model?

For a century, most of the top physicists tried to deny the existence of an ether, yet recent models of dark energy and dark matter would work remarkably like the supposedly debunked "ether" to bridge the gaps in our understanding.

Reality is NOT a mathematical model.  It is REALITY, and the best models attempt to predict what will happen, indeed what is happening all around for you to see, in reality.

I cannot explain all the possible FE and RE models well enough to argue with the most mathematically minded sorts, but I can point out that even avid users of GPS should question how the coordinates are REALLY being calculated.

If I sit on my deck on a clear night, I can see moving pulses of light that most people readily accept to be communications satellites spinning on their own axes, while revolving around a spherical earth.  My own eyes tell me something different:  many kinds of airplanes, from jetliners to drones can fly across the sky.  Those that fly high enough are probably reflecting that part of the Sun's light that is directed mostly upward.  Just a theory, but at least it is a theory based on my own direct observation, versus numbers on a GPS LCD screen.

Cheers.
"Either our brain masses are continually increasing from 32 feet per second per second acceleration, or we are about to be sucked into a giant black hole.  I favor the former."

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #14 on: January 16, 2015, 07:02:07 PM »
GPSJim, you say you are happy to look at any evidence for FET?  Start with your kitchen floor.  Is it flat?  Does it feel like it is spinning?  Even if you drank too much wine, why does the force attracting you straight perpendicular toward your floor have to be explained by an overcomplicated spherical model?

For a century, most of the top physicists tried to deny the existence of an ether, yet recent models of dark energy and dark matter would work remarkably like the supposedly debunked "ether" to bridge the gaps in our understanding.

Reality is NOT a mathematical model.  It is REALITY, and the best models attempt to predict what will happen, indeed what is happening all around for you to see, in reality.

I cannot explain all the possible FE and RE models well enough to argue with the most mathematically minded sorts, but I can point out that even avid users of GPS should question how the coordinates are REALLY being calculated.

If I sit on my deck on a clear night, I can see moving pulses of light that most people readily accept to be communications satellites spinning on their own axes, while revolving around a spherical earth.  My own eyes tell me something different:  many kinds of airplanes, from jetliners to drones can fly across the sky.  Those that fly high enough are probably reflecting that part of the Sun's light that is directed mostly upward.  Just a theory, but at least it is a theory based on my own direct observation, versus numbers on a GPS LCD screen.

Cheers.

Problem is I am fairly positive Jim is in some way a technician or engineer of gps systems. So I have a feeling he has a very good idea how those calculations are done.

Also the assumption that mah doesn't describe reality is demonstrably wrong. Math was created to explain reality. It isn't something just made for fun and now is being shoe horned into describing reality.

I guess we can start at the top with you, if the planet is flat, then where does the sun go when it's dark. If it's a spot light, why can't we see it in infrared. Also as shown by a computer model made by someone here, at noon over I believe it was California, you would still clearly see the sun from South Africa, where it should be almost midnight.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #15 on: January 16, 2015, 07:59:17 PM »
GPSJim, you say you are happy to look at any evidence for FET?  Start with your kitchen floor.  Is it flat?  Does it feel like it is spinning?  Even if you drank too much wine, why does the force attracting you straight perpendicular toward your floor have to be explained by an overcomplicated spherical model?
My kitchen floor is not so flat, it is slate tile.  And it doesn't need any system to explain why I can stand on my floor, if all I want to know is that I won't fly off the floor.  If all one is interested in is knowing that what is happening at them at the current moment is actually happening, one does not need any theory, FET or RET.  But if one wants to be able to predict what might happen as they do other things before they actually have the experience, then some sort of model is required.  For example, what would happen if a human was able to build a rocket that could escape the earths gravitational force?  It is the fact that RET can predict so many things, down to the smallest of details that we say the earth is a spheroid.  But really, it is not flat, and really, it is not a spheroid.  I live in Colorado in a valley, so from my everyday point of view the earth is more like a bowl than flat.  All positions reported by GPS are in WGS84, but you can not use GPS heights in order to dig a ditch for drainage, the water could possible flow the wrong way.  To deal with water flow, one has to take into account the local deviation between the WGS84 ellipsoid and the geoid (the potato everyone is so worried about).

For a century, most of the top physicists tried to deny the existence of an ether, yet recent models of dark energy and dark matter would work remarkably like the supposedly debunked "ether" to bridge the gaps in our understanding.

Who knows, maybe some smart guy will show the model that supports ether and back it up with experimental results that can be repeated by others.  Yes, some and perhaps many scientist with PHDs can be a little stuck up and resistant to new ideas.  And sometimes it takes guts to push against the operating paradigm, I'm sure Galileo Galilei would agree that shifting the operating paradigm can be an arduous journey.  I remember reading that the mass of the electron was a bit off for a while and scientists were pushing their experimental results in the direction of the wrong value because they were afraid to put out a paper that showed a value different from the official value.  Finally someone had the guts to take a closer look.  But it takes more than hand waving and just calling everything wrong.  You can't just call BS on everything and expect to learn a damn thing.

Reality is NOT a mathematical model.  It is REALITY, and the best models attempt to predict what will happen, indeed what is happening all around for you to see, in reality.

I could not agree with you more.  Reality is NOT RET, and it is NOT FET.  Science and math is a model and only has value if it can be used to make predictions about the future.

I cannot explain all the possible FE and RE models well enough to argue with the most mathematically minded sorts, but I can point out that even avid users of GPS should question how the coordinates are REALLY being calculated.
Yes the should, and they can.  You can buy your own GPS receiver that outputs raw GPS measurements for something like $200 bucks.  The raw data is not the users coordinate, but a measure of the distance between the GPS antenna and all the Satellites in view.  And you can make your own position estimate and in fact if you are clever, you can make a position estimate that is better than what standard GPS provides.  The RAW GPS data also tells the user exactly where in the sky the GPS transmitter is, and if one wishes, they can block the signal by moving behind a building or other obstruction and they can see that they will loose data from that Satellite as soon as the line of site to the Satellite is obstructed.  Yes, it takes a little but of work, but if one is really curious about the world, they can take a look themselves, they don't need anyone's permission.  All they need is $200 bucks, a PC and some effort.  And just think of how much one would learn in such an undertaking. 

If I sit on my deck on a clear night, I can see moving pulses of light that most people readily accept to be communications satellites spinning on their own axes, while revolving around a spherical earth.  My own eyes tell me something different:  many kinds of airplanes, from jetliners to drones can fly across the sky.  Those that fly high enough are probably reflecting that part of the Sun's light that is directed mostly upward.  Just a theory, but at least it is a theory based on my own direct observation, versus numbers on a GPS LCD screen.

But what you can't do just sitting on your back deck is predict when and where these satellites and other objects will appear.  You can say, "Oh, pretty", but that's about it.  You can't say, "The ISS is predicted to be in this part of the sky and if we look over there we can find it and take a look at it with binoculars".  If you are perfectly willing to remain a victim of reality then you have no need for math and science.  If you want to navigate a ship from Australia to America, I suggest you use some good old RET.  Using FET could get you killed.

Cheers.
Cheers indeed.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2015, 08:17:30 PM by gpssjim »

Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #16 on: January 16, 2015, 09:58:52 PM »
GPSJim, you say you are happy to look at any evidence for FET?  Start with your kitchen floor.  Is it flat?  Does it feel like it is spinning?  Even if you drank too much wine, why does the force attracting you straight perpendicular toward your floor have to be explained by an overcomplicated spherical model?
My kitchen floor is not so flat, it is slate tile.  And it doesn't need any system to explain why I can stand on my floor, if all I want to know is that I won't fly off the floor.  If all one is interested in is knowing that what is happening at them at the current moment is actually happening, one does not need any theory, FET or RET.  But if one wants to be able to predict what might happen as they do other things before they actually have the experience, then some sort of model is required.  For example, what would happen if a human was able to build a rocket that could escape the earths gravitational force?  It is the fact that RET can predict so many things, down to the smallest of details that we say the earth is a spheroid.  But really, it is not flat, and really, it is not a spheroid.  I live in Colorado in a valley, so from my everyday point of view the earth is more like a bowl than flat.  All positions reported by GPS are in WGS84, but you can not use GPS heights in order to dig a ditch for drainage, the water could possible flow the wrong way.  To deal with water flow, one has to take into account the local deviation between the WGS84 ellipsoid and the geoid (the potato everyone is so worried about).

For a century, most of the top physicists tried to deny the existence of an ether, yet recent models of dark energy and dark matter would work remarkably like the supposedly debunked "ether" to bridge the gaps in our understanding.

Who knows, maybe some smart guy will show the model that supports ether and back it up with experimental results that can be repeated by others.  Yes, some and perhaps many scientist with PHDs can be a little stuck up and resistant to new ideas.  And sometimes it takes guts to push against the operating paradigm, I'm sure Galileo Galilei would agree that shifting the operating paradigm can be an arduous journey.  I remember reading that the mass of the electron was a bit off for a while and scientists were pushing their experimental results in the direction of the wrong value because they were afraid to put out a paper that showed a value different from the official value.  Finally someone had the guts to take a closer look.  But it takes more than hand waving and just calling everything wrong.  You can't just call BS on everything and expect to learn a damn thing.

Reality is NOT a mathematical model.  It is REALITY, and the best models attempt to predict what will happen, indeed what is happening all around for you to see, in reality.

I could not agree with you more.  Reality is NOT RET, and it is NOT FET.  Science and math is a model and only has value if it can be used to make predictions about the future.

I cannot explain all the possible FE and RE models well enough to argue with the most mathematically minded sorts, but I can point out that even avid users of GPS should question how the coordinates are REALLY being calculated.
Yes the should, and they can.  You can buy your own GPS receiver that outputs raw GPS measurements for something like $200 bucks.  The raw data is not the users coordinate, but a measure of the distance between the GPS antenna and all the Satellites in view.  And you can make your own position estimate and in fact if you are clever, you can make a position estimate that is better than what standard GPS provides.  The RAW GPS data also tells the user exactly where in the sky the GPS transmitter is, and if one wishes, they can block the signal by moving behind a building or other obstruction and they can see that they will loose data from that Satellite as soon as the line of site to the Satellite is obstructed.  Yes, it takes a little but of work, but if one is really curious about the world, they can take a look themselves, they don't need anyone's permission.  All they need is $200 bucks, a PC and some effort.  And just think of how much one would learn in such an undertaking. 

If I sit on my deck on a clear night, I can see moving pulses of light that most people readily accept to be communications satellites spinning on their own axes, while revolving around a spherical earth.  My own eyes tell me something different:  many kinds of airplanes, from jetliners to drones can fly across the sky.  Those that fly high enough are probably reflecting that part of the Sun's light that is directed mostly upward.  Just a theory, but at least it is a theory based on my own direct observation, versus numbers on a GPS LCD screen.

But what you can't do just sitting on your back deck is predict when and where these satellites and other objects will appear.  You can say, "Oh, pretty", but that's about it.  You can't say, "The ISS is predicted to be in this part of the sky and if we look over there we can find it and take a look at it with binoculars".  If you are perfectly willing to remain a victim of reality then you have no need for math and science.  If you want to navigate a ship from Australia to America, I suggest you use some good old RET.  Using FET could get you killed.

Cheers.
Cheers indeed.

This made me laugh, thank you.

?

Sterayt Downs

  • 6
  • Whales know the truth . . . .
Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #17 on: January 18, 2015, 08:30:19 PM »
Thanks for your responses, Lemmewinks, GPSJim, and theearthisrounddealwithit.

I guess I'll have to attempt a flat-footed jump to the "top" by wondering why the Flat Earth's Sun has to be so high and constant that South Africa and California could see it at the same time.  Supposing their noons are about 11 hours and roughly 10,000 miles apart, and at the same altitude relative to the Sun, California and South Africa cannot both see sunlight because the Sun is casting light at a narrower angle while over the ocean, and it is as high as 6000 miles.  Over land, the Sun might dip to as low as about 2300 miles, on average, and cast a wider angle.

If the spotlight angle gets wide enough over Florida, couldn't GPSJim's sunrise shadows (in his Front Range Mountain Sunrise thread) be cast by reflected or refracted light getting blocked by nearby gentle hills?

The atmospheric effects that make the Sun's diameter appear constant from everywhere on Earth are unfortunately for anyone without a conspirator government sized budget to study properly.

Like I said, I am just starting with the simple geometry and round numbers.  Quantum effects on ether are out of my budget.
"Either our brain masses are continually increasing from 32 feet per second per second acceleration, or we are about to be sucked into a giant black hole.  I favor the former."

*

sokarul

  • 18823
  • Extra Racist
Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #18 on: January 18, 2015, 09:46:50 PM »
If the sun was far away, hills could create a light cutoff.  But science actually know alot about light, that is why we know there is no magnification effect to make the sun not sink as it moves away. There is a thread on it if you would like to debate it.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

guv

  • 1132
Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #19 on: January 19, 2015, 12:37:28 AM »
You just have to read this. Will give a short quote so you can get the picture.

Rowbotham, of course, was neither the first nor last to promote the 1.5% of the data that supported his position while ignoring the 98.5% that contradicted it. This technique is the common property of those determined to convince others of their position by whatever methods they find expedient. Thus, many creationist evangelists comb the scientific literature trying to find things that don't seem to fit the conventional view. Then they present these anomalies to the public as representative, just as Rowbotham presented his anomalous lighthouses.

Here's the lot.

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/litehous.htm

Explains fe real good A.

?

Sterayt Downs

  • 6
  • Whales know the truth . . . .
Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #20 on: January 19, 2015, 10:00:48 AM »
The Schadewald article guv linked is stimulating, and it even mentions how significant atmospheric refraction can be.  Sokarul, I think you meant to write "shrink" not "sink" but I admit I have not taken measurements that isolate actual atmospheric refraction from other factors.

The Schadewald article's main point is valid:  biased exploration is likely to merely confirm our prejudices.

The article also implies that accepting the round earth theory supported by the 98.5% of the lighthouse data would be the reasonable choice for most of us non-scientists.  Not so clearly valid given the weak lighthouse arguments outlined.

I wish the 1868 debaters, and this 1992 article chronicling them, had mentioned the large observer height fluctuations possible from a ship at sea.  An observer riding the crest of a 100-feet North Sea swell, if it were the largest swell of its set, could momentarily see a lighthouse many miles beyond what either a flat earth or smooth round earth would predict.  Similarly, the oceans in either model need not be perfectly flat or ellipsoidal absent any wind at all.  A sailor at the center of a high atmospheric pressure zone can't see quite as far, either.  Strong winds carve large up or down surge zones in the oceans, and pressure differences bend light.

The Geoid that GPSJim has mentioned in other threads purports to model ocean surface with gravity, but gentle undulating motion of the flat earth could also explain them.
"Either our brain masses are continually increasing from 32 feet per second per second acceleration, or we are about to be sucked into a giant black hole.  I favor the former."

Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #21 on: January 19, 2015, 08:08:18 PM »
The Geoid that GPSJim has mentioned in other threads purports to model ocean surface with gravity, but gentle undulating motion of the flat earth could also explain them.
Well, remember FET says gravity it is not a force, but acceleration.  If two points on the ground are accelerating at different rates, the two points would rip apart.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #22 on: January 20, 2015, 05:44:47 AM »
The Geoid that GPSJim has mentioned in other threads purports to model ocean surface with gravity, but gentle undulating motion of the flat earth could also explain them.
Well, remember FET says gravity it is not a force, but acceleration.  If two points on the ground are accelerating at different rates, the two points would rip apart.


Wait, I thought that RE scientists said that gravity is not a force, but an acceleration?  Are you saying that they are lying?

?

Sterayt Downs

  • 6
  • Whales know the truth . . . .
Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #23 on: January 20, 2015, 06:58:33 AM »
Thanks for the link to the interesting Waldenschade 1992 essay on lighthouses.  The paper is clearly correct to point out that we tend to find only what we are looking for.  I hope even the cited 19th Century researchers accounted for the unmentioned effect of ocean swells.  A sailor atop a big swell might see many miles farther for an instant.  California and South Africa, a dozen hours apart, don't s3 Sun at the same time because Sun is less than 2300 miles high over the ocean, and gets even lower and widens its floodlight angle over land.  Infrared detectors placed at least 600 miles high MIGHT see the dark side of Sun, or even another bright side.
"Either our brain masses are continually increasing from 32 feet per second per second acceleration, or we are about to be sucked into a giant black hole.  I favor the former."

Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #24 on: January 20, 2015, 05:54:53 PM »
Thanks for the link to the interesting Waldenschade 1992 essay on lighthouses.  The paper is clearly correct to point out that we tend to find only what we are looking for.  I hope even the cited 19th Century researchers accounted for the unmentioned effect of ocean swells.  A sailor atop a big swell might see many miles farther for an instant.  California and South Africa, a dozen hours apart, don't s3 Sun at the same time because Sun is less than 2300 miles high over the ocean, and gets even lower and widens its floodlight angle over land.  Infrared detectors placed at least 600 miles high MIGHT see the dark side of Sun, or even another bright side.
2300 miles, I thought the sun was 3000 miles high?  IR detectors at 600 miles can see the dark side of the Sun?  What the h e double tooth picks are you talking about?  Is every bloody FE theory just another random bunch of facts, strung together in some personal theory of BS?

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: What is acceptable evidence?
« Reply #25 on: January 20, 2015, 05:57:39 PM »
Is every bloody FE theory just another random bunch of facts, strung together in some personal theory of BS?

No. Sterayt Downs is just simply wrong. The Sun is about 3000 miles above the Earth. The rest of his post is just... I don't know... gibberish?
Read the FAQS.