standards

why are round earthers and flat earthers held to such different standards?

a round earther has insisted i must be comparable to einstein if my model is to be accurate. i have been asked to deduce a whole mathematical system, reliant on resources that would cost millions if not billions, and months of my life to do well.
round earthers do nothing except resort to google, and not ne of them has ever added to the fantasy they so desperately defend.

how, exactly, does any of that remotely make sense? you demand miracles from flat earthers, and then do nothing yourselves.
it all sounds like desperation, to me.

Well first, if you want to disprove something you have to come up with at least the same amount of contradictory evidence for it, supported by mathematical proofs, and testable data just like they have done.  How is saying oh yeah you are wrong after they spent years developing their theories, experiments, shown these results, backed up their theories with mathematical proofs, had independent verification by their peers, and then being accepted into an accepted theory that many have tried to disprove since then even remotely fair to them? 
It's like if I showed you all the work I did on computer controlled wall avoidance, flew the thing for you to show it working, and showed you the code I used, only to have you say I'm lying and I have some invisible person pushing the thing away from the wall at just the right moment.  The only reason you would give for claiming I was lying was that you didn't understand C code or that embedded systems can't work because they don't have a keyboard attached all the time.
Also many REs do not just go Google something, they actually understand physics, they may have college degrees (some may even be in the science and technology field).  Going to Goolge is something everyone does.  It is an information repository.  Also why do we have to add to the accepted facts of gravity, space flight, etc.?  We are not trying to disprove long held theories.  Honestly, complaining about us showing you where you may be wrong is kind of petty.  For anyone who is serious about developing a theory, they want someone there asking questions, giving them ideas, getting a better understanding of what they need to do to support their ideas. 
I had hope for you, I tried to give you pointers, but you are trying to shortcut to the end now.  You refuse to provide data, by saying it is too hard.  You refuse to accept holes in your idea, because you say we don't understand.  You refuse to see the obvious contradictions in your theory, and will not provide mathematical proofs to show where they may not be contradictions.  You have effectively stopped working on your theory.  You put it out there and said, here ya go, ask me questions, and then got mad about the questions being asked. 
You are not being held to different standards, you are trying to disprove something that has already went through a hell of allot more than we are asking you to do for your ideas at this time.  Those previous theories that you want to replace went through worse to get where they are.

Well first, if you want to disprove something you have to come up with at least the same amount of contradictory evidence for it, supported by mathematical proofs, and testable data just like they have done.  How is saying oh yeah you are wrong after they spent years developing their theories, experiments, shown these results, backed up their theories with mathematical proofs, had independent verification by their peers, and then being accepted into an accepted theory that many have tried to disprove since then even remotely fair to them? 
It's like if I showed you all the work I did on computer controlled wall avoidance, flew the thing for you to show it working, and showed you the code I used, only to have you say I'm lying and I have some invisible person pushing the thing away from the wall at just the right moment.  The only reason you would give for claiming I was lying was that you didn't understand C code or that embedded systems can't work because they don't have a keyboard attached all the time.
Also many REs do not just go Google something, they actually understand physics, they may have college degrees (some may even be in the science and technology field).  Going to Goolge is something everyone does.  It is an information repository.  Also why do we have to add to the accepted facts of gravity, space flight, etc.?  We are not trying to disprove long held theories.  Honestly, complaining about us showing you where you may be wrong is kind of petty.  For anyone who is serious about developing a theory, they want someone there asking questions, giving them ideas, getting a better understanding of what they need to do to support their ideas. 
I had hope for you, I tried to give you pointers, but you are trying to shortcut to the end now.  You refuse to provide data, by saying it is too hard.  You refuse to accept holes in your idea, because you say we don't understand.  You refuse to see the obvious contradictions in your theory, and will not provide mathematical proofs to show where they may not be contradictions.  You have effectively stopped working on your theory.  You put it out there and said, here ya go, ask me questions, and then got mad about the questions being asked. 
You are not being held to different standards, you are trying to disprove something that has already went through a hell of allot more than we are asking you to do for your ideas at this time.  Those previous theories that you want to replace went through worse to get where they are.

Nice read. I would also like to add that all true scientists do not complain about being held to high standards because they hold themselves to high standards. True scientists are not about winning arguments but achieving the end result. Whatever that may drive them be it money, fame or a shot at a Nobel prize, a true scientist is unfazed by the task at hand, unfazed by all the problems that lay before them, however numerous or big. If you look at the who's who in scientific history, they all share these traits and level of perseverance. Like you said, round earth did its homework, FE has yet to do theirs.

amazing isn't it? you happily talk about how round earth theory took centuries and experts and so many resources to reach the detail it currently has today, and yet you expect every single flat earther to manage all of that in the hours between you asking a question and their posting a response. (and don't deny it, i've seen the impatience with which you hound every flat earther).
hypocritical, really.

if there are holes in my idea, i am happy to hear them: none have been provided, unless you count straw men. what i am not happy to hear is people asking for more than even they would be willing to provide.

amazing isn't it? you happily talk about how round earth theory took centuries and experts and so many resources to reach the detail it currently has today, and yet you expect every single flat earther to manage all of that in the hours between you asking a question and their posting a response. (and don't deny it, i've seen the impatience with which you hound every flat earther).
hypocritical, really.

if there are holes in my idea, i am happy to hear them: none have been provided, unless you count straw men. what i am not happy to hear is people asking for more than even they would be willing to provide.

All things considered, I am sure you understand that the burden of proof is hard to shift when the physics of a round Earth have been well established since the antiquities. You make it sound like people are asking you for all your data, evidence and formulas right this instant, they are not. But the longer you beat around the bush and provide nothing but what you said you "observed", then don't be surprised if your theory is not taken seriously.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 04, 2015, 11:24:47 AM

amazing isn't it? you happily talk about how round earth theory took centuries and experts and so many resources to reach the detail it currently has today, and yet you expect every single flat earther to manage all of that in the hours between you asking a question and their posting a response. (and don't deny it, i've seen the impatience with which you hound every flat earther).
hypocritical, really.

if there are holes in my idea, i am happy to hear them: none have been provided, unless you count straw men. what i am not happy to hear is people asking for more than even they would be willing to provide.

All things considered, I am sure you understand that the burden of proof is hard to shift when the physics of a round Earth have been well established since the antiquities. You make it sound like people are asking you for all your data, evidence and formulas right this instant, they are not. But the longer you beat around the bush and provide nothing but what you said you "observed", then don't be surprised if your theory is not taken seriously.

'since the antiquities', there you go. you openly admit round earthers have had centuries to work on their model. i have a life so i can't just dedicated all my time to working on the dual earth model and be able to provide equations for everything round earth theory does. that's a fact, irrespective of which model is true. asking me to do so, asking anyone to do so, is simply absurd.
how long do you think it takes to come up with a model with fully realized equations, and how many resources do you think it takes to take necssary observations? really.

in addition, there is no point in working on a flawed or incomplete model. i have made no secret of the fact dual earth theory is being refined, i have no desire to waste hours on something that won't work: that is why i am here, to determine which observations and facts are not explained by dual earth theory, and refine accordingly. if this leads to round earth theory, very well, but i doubt it will due to the multitude of flaws present there.
as it is, i am looking to refine the model: something no round earther seems interested in talking about. you'd much rather ask for things which are completely unfeasible for any one person to provide, let alone as quickly as you insist. just look at how many people press iwitness, spamming him with private messages, for select answers which may take time to work out.

DO NOT RESPOND TO JROWE!!! HE'S A TROLL!!!

I do not expect you to do the same thing as what we consider facts in a few hours.  I do however expect you to work on it and answer questions and actually consider that you may be wrong.  You are now calling this a theory and proposing it as an almost complete alternative, which it isn't.  You have to work on the mathematics, gather data in the form of empirical evidence, and be able to answer questions about what doesn't make sense.  You however are being lazy about it now, claiming you can't do the research due to funding, time, etc.  I want you to work on your ideas, not give excuses why you can't then just want everyone to accept it as fact with no real work put into backing up your ideas.  You posted that Flat Earth supporters are unfairly having to prove your ideas.  This just isn't true, we are asking you to do what has already been done for the facts we already accept. 
I do not hound people on here, I have shown you holes in your ideas. 
I have repeatedly stood up for you personally, trying to get others to give you time to develop your ideas.  You cannot jump to the end and call it a theory or a fact just because you have given up working on it.  Can't isn't a valid excuse.  I show you the fact that the current accepted models of how our world and universe work have been tested.  This is a testing method you are in.  Your ideas were not ready for this testing though, since you continually change it.  This is not a bad thing, it shows you are somewhat willing to consider flaws.  But do not come to me acting like I am unfairly targeting you or just dismiss what I am saying as straw man arguments.  I have not intentionally misstated your words in a contradictory way to confuse the other readers (BTW that is what a straw man argument is).  You need to understand that you are not any better or worse than Einstein, the ability is in everyone to provide a workable theory until you decide you can't do it.  Right now you are in the can't do it area. 
If I decided that I wanted to disprove some physical law (singular), I would be prepared for years of questions, I would have my data in order before I announced it, I would have some experiments in order before I announced it, I would definitely have the mathematical work done before I announced it.  Just having the notion that this physical law didn't make sense to me and I thought it may work this other way would not be enough.  Also I would start at learning everything I could possibly learn about that law I was trying to disprove.  You however are trying to disprove multiple physics. chemistry, biological, electromagnetic ,etc. laws all at once.  Yet you want a pass to just not be questioned about your notions. 
Yes I happily say that it took years to get the current theories and accepted laws of nature where they are, and they will continue to be worked on as long as we can find new data.  I will not let some random guy come in and tell me what I have personally seen through experiments, mathematical solutions, and experiences are wrong so his conspiracy theory can survive or he cannot understand physics.  I have spent years trying to learn whats the truth, spent years in school learning how to do the experiments and math.  So yeah I expect you to do a shit ton of work to tell me I am wrong.  I am not closed to the concept that I am wrong, but you have to work at it. 
Stop being lazy.  Stop blaming others.  Stop saying I CAN'T.  Stop ignoring questions.  Stop immediately going to the silly straw man excuse you've seen others use. 
I was totally open to giving you the respect you wanted, and you have basically showed me you do not deserve it with that last comment, accusing me of something I haven't done.
If you want to work on your ideas, do so.  This is how you do it, you let others ask questions.  But I am not sure I will continue to help you, as I am pretty pissed about that comment.

amazing isn't it? you happily talk about how round earth theory took centuries and experts and so many resources to reach the detail it currently has today, and yet you expect every single flat earther to manage all of that in the hours between you asking a question and their posting a response. (and don't deny it, i've seen the impatience with which you hound every flat earther).
hypocritical, really.

if there are holes in my idea, i am happy to hear them: none have been provided, unless you count straw men. what i am not happy to hear is people asking for more than even they would be willing to provide.

Well for one, Round Earthers usually show trustworthy, scientific evidence for their claims, so I guess they just want Flat Earthers to show the same level of evidence of their theory. And we have satellites in space that show us that the earth is a sphere, so part of it might just be us wondering what the heck evidence you might have to go against that. We already have our evidence so you just need to show yours. (I know its an uphill battle, but thats just how it goes.)

why are round earthers and flat earthers held to such different standards?

They're not.
They're held to exactly the same standard.
Which from the point of view of the one attempting to do the disproving is incredibly disadvantageous, but in no way unfair.
Actual science involves testing your theory, ensuring that it is correct, and only then claiming that it is true once you have verified your results.
What passes for Flat Earth (God forgive me for using this word in this context) "science" generally involves stating that a premise is true and then attempting to find some logical thread that allows it to work, usually despite mountains of contradictory evidence.

i can't believe i've honestly had to read "can't isn't a valid excuse." being unable to do something is the very definition of a valid excuse.
you cannot call this fair. i don't care who you are, you cannot hold flat earth theory to the same standard as round earth theory because flat earthers do not have anywhere near the same amount of resources. if, as has happened, a flat earther is asked to provide the equations governing an eclipse, they have to basically work from scratch: a round earther has to type into google and they get the answer fully formed. if a round earther had to do the same as a flat earther, and work from scratch (even if they were given how the motions of the moon and sun look from earth), they would not be able to do it.

you can't call something fair, and then compare two entirely different things.

i am happy to be questioned about my theory, as i have said multiple times. i am not happy about being pressed for things beyond any individual's abilities. not one of you would be willing to derive and prove equations of motion or relativity from scratch, unaided, but apparently it's fine to ask the same of us.
you can't compare people with months and years of free time, and an incredible amount more of resources, to people with none of that. to do so is absurd.

I accept that it's not reasonable to expect one person to do all the experimentation and math required. Trouble is, without the experimentation and math you have nothing but ideas.

You can't view round earthers and flat earthers equally - we accept the generally held scientific world view, all the work has been done.

Flat earthers are proposing an alternative to the generally held scientific world view - the burden of proof is on you.

I accept that it's not reasonable to expect one person to do all the experimentation and math required. Trouble is, without the experimentation and math you have nothing but ideas.

You can't view round earthers and flat earthers equally - we accept the generally held scientific world view, all the work has been done.

Flat earthers are proposing an alternative to the generally held scientific world view - the burden of proof is on you.

when a model matches all of our observations, even if it does not yet have numbers, that should be reason enough.

Quote from: Weatherwax on April 05, 2015, 05:10:56 AM

I accept that it's not reasonable to expect one person to do all the experimentation and math required. Trouble is, without the experimentation and math you have nothing but ideas.

You can't view round earthers and flat earthers equally - we accept the generally held scientific world view, all the work has been done.

Flat earthers are proposing an alternative to the generally held scientific world view - the burden of proof is on you.

when a model matches all of our observations, even if it does not yet have numbers, that should be reason enough.

In that case there's no reason not to accept round earth.

Quote from: Weatherwax on April 05, 2015, 05:10:56 AM

I accept that it's not reasonable to expect one person to do all the experimentation and math required. Trouble is, without the experimentation and math you have nothing but ideas.

You can't view round earthers and flat earthers equally - we accept the generally held scientific world view, all the work has been done.

Flat earthers are proposing an alternative to the generally held scientific world view - the burden of proof is on you.

when a model matches all of our observations, even if it does not yet have numbers, that should be reason enough.

Then why do you not believe in a mostly spherical earth?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 05:16:15 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on April 05, 2015, 05:10:56 AM

I accept that it's not reasonable to expect one person to do all the experimentation and math required. Trouble is, without the experimentation and math you have nothing but ideas.

You can't view round earthers and flat earthers equally - we accept the generally held scientific world view, all the work has been done.

Flat earthers are proposing an alternative to the generally held scientific world view - the burden of proof is on you.

when a model matches all of our observations, even if it does not yet have numbers, that should be reason enough.

Then why do you not believe in a mostly spherical earth?

because it requires more assumptions than dual earth theory, and does not adequately explain our observations. (a round earth could not form from accelerated matter, lunar eclipses are an absurdity, there's too much reliance on air...)

You simply assume the earth is flat. Why? If you can't prove it is, you lose. And you're whining about a lack of evidence for a theory not based in science that you are trying to prove for a reason I can't even fathom.

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 05, 2015, 05:50:41 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 05:16:15 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on April 05, 2015, 05:10:56 AM

I accept that it's not reasonable to expect one person to do all the experimentation and math required. Trouble is, without the experimentation and math you have nothing but ideas.

You can't view round earthers and flat earthers equally - we accept the generally held scientific world view, all the work has been done.

Flat earthers are proposing an alternative to the generally held scientific world view - the burden of proof is on you.

when a model matches all of our observations, even if it does not yet have numbers, that should be reason enough.

Then why do you not believe in a mostly spherical earth?

because it requires more assumptions than dual earth theory, and does not adequately explain our observations. (a round earth could not form from accelerated matter, lunar eclipses are an absurdity, there's too much reliance on air...)

No, dual earth theory requires more assumptions than round earth.  And is only slightly better than flat earth at explaining observed phenomena.

Quote from: Weatherwax on April 05, 2015, 05:10:56 AM

I accept that it's not reasonable to expect one person to do all the experimentation and math required. Trouble is, without the experimentation and math you have nothing but ideas.

You can't view round earthers and flat earthers equally - we accept the generally held scientific world view, all the work has been done.

Flat earthers are proposing an alternative to the generally held scientific world view - the burden of proof is on you.

when a model matches all of our observations, even if it does not yet have numbers, that should be reason enough.

Actually, FE/DFE match only 1 observation : the Earth seem flat when you're walking on it. Everything else goes in favour of the RE model.

Oh, and RE model doesn't need fake global conspiracy theories to be alive.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 09:29:17 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 05, 2015, 05:50:41 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 05:16:15 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on April 05, 2015, 05:10:56 AM

I accept that it's not reasonable to expect one person to do all the experimentation and math required. Trouble is, without the experimentation and math you have nothing but ideas.

You can't view round earthers and flat earthers equally - we accept the generally held scientific world view, all the work has been done.

Flat earthers are proposing an alternative to the generally held scientific world view - the burden of proof is on you.

when a model matches all of our observations, even if it does not yet have numbers, that should be reason enough.

Then why do you not believe in a mostly spherical earth?

because it requires more assumptions than dual earth theory, and does not adequately explain our observations. (a round earth could not form from accelerated matter, lunar eclipses are an absurdity, there's too much reliance on air...)

No, dual earth theory requires more assumptions than round earth.  And is only slightly better than flat earth at explaining observed phenomena.

do you have any more than assertion?

gefn, you are clearly not familiar with dual earth theory, please educate yourself before making such claims.

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 05, 2015, 09:55:11 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 09:29:17 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 05, 2015, 05:50:41 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 05:16:15 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on April 05, 2015, 05:10:56 AM

I accept that it's not reasonable to expect one person to do all the experimentation and math required. Trouble is, without the experimentation and math you have nothing but ideas.

You can't view round earthers and flat earthers equally - we accept the generally held scientific world view, all the work has been done.

Flat earthers are proposing an alternative to the generally held scientific world view - the burden of proof is on you.

when a model matches all of our observations, even if it does not yet have numbers, that should be reason enough.

Then why do you not believe in a mostly spherical earth?

because it requires more assumptions than dual earth theory, and does not adequately explain our observations. (a round earth could not form from accelerated matter, lunar eclipses are an absurdity, there's too much reliance on air...)

No, dual earth theory requires more assumptions than round earth.  And is only slightly better than flat earth at explaining observed phenomena.

do you have any more than assertion?

gefn, you are clearly not familiar with dual earth theory, please educate yourself before making such claims.

Well I only read all your posts on the subject. Do you have any more documentation I could focus on ?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 11:03:17 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 05, 2015, 09:55:11 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 09:29:17 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 05, 2015, 05:50:41 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 05:16:15 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on April 05, 2015, 05:10:56 AM

I accept that it's not reasonable to expect one person to do all the experimentation and math required. Trouble is, without the experimentation and math you have nothing but ideas.

You can't view round earthers and flat earthers equally - we accept the generally held scientific world view, all the work has been done.

Flat earthers are proposing an alternative to the generally held scientific world view - the burden of proof is on you.

when a model matches all of our observations, even if it does not yet have numbers, that should be reason enough.

Then why do you not believe in a mostly spherical earth?

because it requires more assumptions than dual earth theory, and does not adequately explain our observations. (a round earth could not form from accelerated matter, lunar eclipses are an absurdity, there's too much reliance on air...)

No, dual earth theory requires more assumptions than round earth.  And is only slightly better than flat earth at explaining observed phenomena.

do you have any more than assertion?

gefn, you are clearly not familiar with dual earth theory, please educate yourself before making such claims.

Well I only read all your posts on the subject. Do you have any more documentation I could focus on ?

if that was true, then you would see all phenomenon are explained by dual earth theory.

Quote from: Gefn on April 05, 2015, 03:49:45 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 11:03:17 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 05, 2015, 09:55:11 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 09:29:17 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 05, 2015, 05:50:41 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 05:16:15 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on April 05, 2015, 05:10:56 AM

I accept that it's not reasonable to expect one person to do all the experimentation and math required. Trouble is, without the experimentation and math you have nothing but ideas.

You can't view round earthers and flat earthers equally - we accept the generally held scientific world view, all the work has been done.

Flat earthers are proposing an alternative to the generally held scientific world view - the burden of proof is on you.

when a model matches all of our observations, even if it does not yet have numbers, that should be reason enough.

Then why do you not believe in a mostly spherical earth?

because it requires more assumptions than dual earth theory, and does not adequately explain our observations. (a round earth could not form from accelerated matter, lunar eclipses are an absurdity, there's too much reliance on air...)

No, dual earth theory requires more assumptions than round earth.  And is only slightly better than flat earth at explaining observed phenomena.

do you have any more than assertion?

gefn, you are clearly not familiar with dual earth theory, please educate yourself before making such claims.

Well I only read all your posts on the subject. Do you have any more documentation I could focus on ?

if that was true, then you would see all phenomenon are explained by dual earth theory.

Can i have a link to that post?

EDIT: Found it, or some of it. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63027.0#.VSHO-MkmuLA

One thing I noticed right off the bat is that you assume the Earth is Flat without giving evidence. Since this is the premise, and it hasn't been proven, then logically all other conclusions you draw from this are wrong. So are your premises that an accelerating universe means that the Earth is flat. The accelerating force is not strong enough to cause this. Also, your assumption that aether exists though there is no evidence for this.  You say:

Further, there are many such whirlpools. This is my one assumption, for which my primary evidence is observational, and personal. If you don’t believe in it, it’s your loss, but I think observational evidence, the fact something must maintain the earth's acceleration, is justified.

But if it was observational evidence, it would not be personal, and wouldn't have to be believed in.

There are various other flaws, which Conker points out in detail.

_{And here I will try to peer review this writing, which actually seems coherent (yet wrong at many points) I will use this writing style for my annotations, as to distinguish from your own writing.}

Here, I will outline my thoughts, and my beliefs and evidence for the state of the world. There will be outlines, justifications, and an faq. For those who insist on derailing and talking about my typing style, this was written in word so there are some automatic fixes.
I doubt this will convince round earthers set in their ways. It is not meant to. Instead, I hope to make it clear what I think, and why, and undo the need to keep repeating myself.
I am not interested in debating here. _{[dont worry, this wont be a debate, just a peer review.}start a thread if you must, but if you think I’ve missed an obvious query, or something needs clarification, then let me know so I can add it. I think the evidence I have is sufficient, but if you disagree, it doesn’t matter right now. Consider this post an attempt to gain a working, internally consistent model at the very least. _{I appraise such an effort. Not very common of a FEer to do such a thing. Bravo.}On those grounds, if anything needs explanation, let me know.
The post will be written in order:

• Crucial first steps
• My sole assumption
• Basic facts
• Air
• Faq

I will also link to this post in my sig. if you’re here because of that, please go to the relevant section, and read. Assume I agree with the site faq unless stated otherwise.

First steps
The thing we need to remember_*prove is that the earth is flat. From this, everything else falls apart. There is evidence for this. The simplest is to look out your window: if, as round earthers say, this is a sphere, and yet no flat surfaces exist on a sphere. _{Incorrect. An infinitelly large sphere is flat (defined as a surface in which the tangents of all points are paralel). In a finite sphere, such as the Earth's ideal surface, the tangents of two points that are, for example, 1 meter apart are almost the same. The rate of curvature of an idealized Earth (defined as the lenght between a point in the tangent of the surface and its projection on the surface itself, also known as shadow), is usually quoted around 8 inches per mile, or 0.1 meters per kilometer. Its a very small rate of courvature, which is why, at a low level of detail, it looks almost like the rate is 0 (or that the Earth is flat)}
We also acknowledge the fact that everything is accelerating. _{All known !!matter!! seems to.} Even round earthers admit the evidence for this is overwhelming, we move away from the source of the universe, the center, the site of the big bang as round earthers call it. If you have matter accelerating, however, it cannot form a sphere._{The acceleration from the Big Bang is small enough to cause near zero influence on a planetary level. Also, a sphere of matter must actually have some form of cohesion to keep its shape under forces such as the centrifugal force and tidal efects from all other bodies in the solar system. Gravity is the generally accepted reason for this cohesion} It forms a flat surface, a disk: this is because the matter that is further ahead touches, there’s friction, and it slows: the further back motor pushes into it, and ultimately everything flats out to become a disk. _{I suppose you mean this is a very slow process, since conservation of momentum would mean that neither particle decelerates or accelerates, except for friction loss.}
You can test this yourself: go to your kitchen, pour flour out onto your desk, and push. the experiment is not perfect as we have to deal with gravity, but that only acts in one direction. The fact you get no kind of curve pushing back against your hand, and get a perfectly flat line in every direction, is enough.
From this, we draw conclusions.

Lone Assumption
Aether. We deduce that something must accelerate the flat earth upwards. _{I will ignore my own points from now on to keep spotting flaws, but they should be tackled from the first to the last (first one's, at first steps, debunk the entirety of the hypothesis, if correct)}The term I give to this is aether. I have personal experience of it, but I do not expect anyone other than myself to take that as evidence.
This is an entirely reasonable assumption to make, as it supported by observational evidence. It is simple to see that, as the earth is flat, something must accelerate it. _{Not necesarilly. The Earth might be infinitelly large, causing the perpendicular gravitatorial force we observe. For data on Gauss' infinite Earth, [1]}

We can deduce more, however. The aether is a universal substance: it exists everywhere._{That would contradict the statement that its accelerating, unless you are proposing a constant stream of aether? This might need clarification}
 It is what caused the acceleration that flattened the matter that became the earth, and the flow would clearly be parted with a disk in the way. As such, the aether will split upon contact into a flow on each side, and when it meets again, it meets in a whirlpool: a perpetual circular motion. _{whirlpools might be a poor example, but I understand the point you try to get across. Keep in mind whirlpools are complex turbulent flows, though.[2]}
This I call the aetheric whirlpool.
Further, there are many such whirlpools. This is my one assumption, for which my primary evidence is observational, and personal. If you don’t believe in it, it’s your loss, but I think observational evidence is justified. _{Actual proof, whether observational or personal, is required. Citing the existance of such proof does ot equate its existance}
These multiple whirlpools come from the fact that there are various densities of aether_{Aether must be first defined in a way that its falsafiable, then proven to exist, before making such wild assumptions as of the existance of diferent densities of aether.} , usually all combined in the one flow, but when it’s split by the earth, each density clearly recombines at a different rate, and each creates a new whirlpool.
The lightest are closest to the earth. _{proof needed}These have such low density, such thinness the whirlpool effect is minimal. (they’re covered more fully later). The further away you get, the thicker they become, able to move objects along.
Another fact_{this assertion is nowhere near to be taken as an hypothesis, much less fact} is that the aether wishes to be whole._{proof needed, and a weird way of expression. If you want to be taken seriously, I would surround that phrase in quotation marks, and explain that there is some kind of atractive force between them.} The densities are attracted to one another: as the thinner densities have less of a pull, it is all attracted up to the thickest (which explains why the flows around the earth are drawn together). The importance of this will also be explained later.
The traits of aether are as I have said. It affects matter, able to impart force _{this would imply, then, that it contains charged particles, affects electromagnetic fields, or is extremelly dense}, but is not made of molecules_{this ressembles to me a neutron star}. It refracts light, as light does as it goes through a new medium. It has negligible mass _{negligible, or zero?}, especially at lower densities. It is like fire, in that it is neither solid, liquid, gas _{fire is known to be hot gas. You also missed plasma and Bose-Einstein condensates as states of matter.}or energy: it is one of the things which falls into the cracks between definitions. The easiest way to think of it is as tangible energy_{I would assume that you mean photons by energy. Those only are carriers of electromagnetic force, one of the fundamental forces of the universe but certainly not the only one. Heavy clarification and expansion is required on this section.}.
It is also able to affect minds. Throughout human history people have claimed to have spoken to gods, and ideas like this, and an all-pervasive energy, and the need for something new are recurrent. The world is not complete. This is the aether’s work: it wants to be whole, and many who open their minds sense this. It is also behind many experiences of god. _{proof of consciousness needed}

Basic Facts
So far, we’ve covered why the world is flat, and why we are kept to its surface.
Above the earth are stars, suns, the moon and planets. All of these are the same kind of entity. The sun is a star closer to us, and planets look the same as stars when seen with the naked eye (absurd if they are just rock or unlit gas)._{Planet light is just reflected light by the sun, as determined by countless spectrometric analysis done both by scientists and hobbyists [2], and by the fact that celestial bodies can eclipse parts of each other (we can, for example, observe Jupiter's surface to be eclipsed by its moons on ocasions [3]}
The moon glows too brightly to be just a rock. despite repeated assertion, it is truly absurd to believe a rock can reflect as much light as we see, much less be bright white. _{As anyone who has seen the moon dawn with the sun already rosen up, the moon only looks bright because the night is very dark. Moonlight is several degrees of magnitude less potent than the Sun's, which is what we would expect from a rock with the aproximate reflectivity of charcoal to reflect.}
Stars are made by dust caught in the aetheric whirlpool. When the disk of the earth is formed, more matter collides above in the aether of suitable density. It becomes metal with enough force on it, while it is surrounded by rock. This creates a spotlight effect, as the metal is heated white-hot by the flow of aether_{Spectral analysis of stars prove them to be composed mostly of H2 and He in fusion, not dust or metal.[4] and [5]}. These are caught in the whirlpool, causing circular motion.
There are too many details to go into with so-called orbits, but the moon provides an example. It is unstable, alternating between several whirlpools, and spinning._{Detailing is needed to be done in this section. Mechanical analysis of the orbit should be done, but, of course, that would require aetheric forces to be defined and bounded} When the sides and back face us, we see no light. The phases of the moon are when it rotates, and we see the light at an angle. The texture of the metal provides the craters we see: which can be seen at any angle. The idea that we see the same face is a clear optical illusion. There are many differences, and the only highlighted features which we observe appear closer when the moon is at an angle. _{This is clearly and demostrably wrong. Craters in the surface are clearly unique, and can be recognized at night or at day, in any phase of the moon, even when in darkness. Furthermore, the existance of permalight zones(parts of the moon that are always or almost always under the sunshine) disproves that idea.}
This is one possible. I’ve been considering the idea that the moon is transparent, and lets light through, but I do not know the details. _{This line probably either deserves more expansion, or must be dropped totally}
This is the solar system. The aetheric whirlpools near the earth are also responsible for a number of illusions (such as flight times, where they function similarly to supposed jet streams. Pilots simply alter their altitude to reach the correct one).

Air
This is one of the most controversial things I’ve said, but based entirely on simple logic and observation. It does not need to be true for the earth to be flat, but it can only be true with the aetheric model: as such, as it is true, this is further evidence for the flat earth.
There is no such thing as air. Air resistance is the low-density aether on air, breathing is harder as we ascend as aether becomes thicker (gravity decreasing at those heights because the whirlpools are pulled upwards by the thick density of the higher aether, disrupting instruments)_{[this suggests that, in this model, gravitatorial force does not exist. If so, the Cavendish experiment must be accounted for]}, and we do not need air to breathe: we require motion. _{Liquid breathing has been tested to very limited success [6], but the fact that liquid breathing can be kept for hours goes against this idea, specially since failure reasons are mostly due to the change in lung mechanics, and worse gas exchange [7]}
However, many substances are poisonous. For example, water, when it reaches the lungs, is too heavy to keep them moving. _{A list of all poisonous substances and the reasons why are they poisonous is required}
Movement is required as it imparts heat. This keeps our bodies going. There is a reason the dead are cold: they no longer breathe. _{This is incorrect, as mechanical heating while in rest is minimal(except for the heart), most heat comes instead from chemical reactions in the liver and the brain[8]}That is not to say oxygen does not help: it does. Increased amounts of oxygen in poison or otherwise dangerous materials renders them less harmful, as oxygen is an aid in conducting heat. _{Helium has better thermal conductivity than Oxygen, and its not a poison, yet it causes drowning too. [9]}
Scuba tanks, balloons, plastic bags, and other enclosed spaces are dangerous for the simple reason that they have loose particles on the edge. Repeatedly inhaling and exhaling draws loose particles into your lungs, which is clearly dangerous. Fluid prevents motion, metal takes in heat, and many other substances poison. _{Why is there no evidence of silicosis in air-deprivated deceaseds? Expand upon the mechanism of purification of poisons by metal}
These are the simplest explanations. The three things to remember are that the body requires motion to exist, and that the lungs are sensitive: improper contents proves dangerous, if not fatal. It takes cleaner gulps to flush the poisons form your lungs, and that does not always work. Third, aether carries force: it imparts force (such as when you blow up a balloon, and the force makes it expand).
There are two fundamental pieces of evidence for this. The first is logic: if you open your eyes, you do not feel the thousands of molecules people say must be striking them. _{Neither do I feel brownian motion in water, yet a microscope will show it to me. The nanoscopical levels of force imparted by the molecules of air is impossible to feel (if it is i mechanical rest, of course). However, we do feel the strike of particles on us when we scale it up a bit: its called scorching.}Think how much a mere grain of sand hurts._{A grain of sand is about 1/4 mm in diameter. Oxygen has a Van-Der-Waals radius of 152 picometers. That means it is aproximatelly 6100000 times smaller.} Second, examine a kettle. You boil water, you get steam, and steam goes up: and yet steam is h2o. one oxygen is heavier than nitrogen, the supposed primary ingredient in air. Yet, even with two hydrogens to make it heavier, it somehow floats: clearly this can’t be the case if air is real. _{Steam is still mostly air, mixed with water particles, and water vapour (gasseous H2O). The reason why it rises to the top is because of the convection current caused by the hot steam and the cold air above. In an enclosed oven at exactly 100C, steam shouldn't rise to the top.}
(In fact, it is attracted upwards because the lightest elements, hydrogen and helium, have more of the aether to them than many things, and so are drawn up). _{Proof needed}

FAQ

Spectroscopy shows what you’re saying is wrong.
Spectroscopy doesn’t take into account the effect aether has on light, so it is unreliable. At ground level, all this shows is that the refractive index of aether is similar to air. _{Mass spectrometry does not depend on light, but on mass-to-charge ratio.Analytical chemistry can be used as well. Also, aether must be defined first before using it as a shield against Spectroscopy.}

How does fire burn with no air? why does it go out when air is burnt up?
Fire does not require oxygen. _{No one claims that. Fire, though, requires a fuel, and an oxidant. Proof of fires without fire and comburent must be provided (Autoigniting substances like hydrazine fuel have mechanisms as to act as both as fuel and oxidant via catalysts, and as such, dont count for this)}We see this from the basic chemistry oxygen test: when fire is in oxygen, it looks completely different to fire in air. _{Spectal lines of fire change depending of the substacnes that are being heated to light-emission levels. The spectral lines of oxygen are still apreciated in air fires}Fire requires motion_{Modern science mostly agrees with you, since thermodynamical temperature is considered to be the average degree of freedom of movement in a substance. I doubt you mean that, though.}, like all heat: when you, for example, through a blanket over a fire, or put a glass over a candle, the motion is limited, and soon cancels itself out. _{Lasers cause heat without moving parts. So do exothermical reactions}

What about sound, and bell jars?
Sound is vibrations: force, transmitted via aether._{This contradicts your statement that the aether itself is inmaterial} In a bell jar, the pump puts force into the aether, and disrupts the sound by keeping it moving. Said movement is also what keeps the jar in place: it’s like climbing a chute by bracing your arms against the wall. Strong enough horizontal force prevents movement up or down.

Quote from: Gefn on April 05, 2015, 03:49:45 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 11:03:17 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 05, 2015, 09:55:11 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 09:29:17 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 05, 2015, 05:50:41 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 05, 2015, 05:16:15 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on April 05, 2015, 05:10:56 AM

I accept that it's not reasonable to expect one person to do all the experimentation and math required. Trouble is, without the experimentation and math you have nothing but ideas.

You can't view round earthers and flat earthers equally - we accept the generally held scientific world view, all the work has been done.

Flat earthers are proposing an alternative to the generally held scientific world view - the burden of proof is on you.

when a model matches all of our observations, even if it does not yet have numbers, that should be reason enough.

Then why do you not believe in a mostly spherical earth?

because it requires more assumptions than dual earth theory, and does not adequately explain our observations. (a round earth could not form from accelerated matter, lunar eclipses are an absurdity, there's too much reliance on air...)

No, dual earth theory requires more assumptions than round earth.  And is only slightly better than flat earth at explaining observed phenomena.

do you have any more than assertion?

gefn, you are clearly not familiar with dual earth theory, please educate yourself before making such claims.

Well I only read all your posts on the subject. Do you have any more documentation I could focus on ?

if that was true, then you would see all phenomenon are explained by dual earth theory.

Should I remind you that you're still completely unable to explain eclipses (solar and lunar) ? Your last try (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63316.0#.VSI2LfmsXk0) resulted in a pathetic fail on your part. Oh, and given the orbit of the sun in your model, I still don't see how you could even explain this : http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEplot/SEplot2001/SE2015Mar20T.GIF , http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot/LEplot2001/LE2015Apr04T.pdf , http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEplot/SEplot2001/SE2015Sep13P.GIF , http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot/LEplot2001/LE2015Sep28T.pdf , etc.

elimist, my model has been refined multiple times, thanks in part due to such comments as conker's. i would suggest you start near the bottom of page two, where dual earth theory is fully outlined. after that point, also, there is a post describing aether in detail, and how there is no assumption in its existence. everything about it is a deduced trait of space, which we know exists.

gefn, you are wrong, plain and simple. your refusal to accept an answer does not mean one hasn't been given.

elimist, my model has been refined multiple times, thanks in part due to such comments as conker's. i would suggest you start near the bottom of page two, where dual earth theory is fully outlined. after that point, also, there is a post describing aether in detail, and how there is no assumption in its existence. everything about it is a deduced trait of space, which we know exists.

Except the fact that space has not been observed to have any of the properties you say it has.

elimist, my model has been refined multiple times, thanks in part due to such comments as conker's. i would suggest you start near the bottom of page two, where dual earth theory is fully outlined. after that point, also, there is a post describing aether in detail, and how there is no assumption in its existence. everything about it is a deduced trait of space, which we know exists.

gefn, you are wrong, plain and simple. your refusal to accept an answer does not mean one hasn't been given.

I didn't say you didn't answer, I said your try ended up in a miserable fail, i.e. you explained nothing and had to invent properties on Sun and Moon to try to fill holes.

You want me to caricature the way you're debatting ? Here we go :

- Person 1 : how does FErs explain sunsets ?
- You : how would you explain them without Google
- Person 1 : *uses his physics skills and explain sunsets*
- You : French flag is green and yellow
- Person 1 : What's the link ? And it's blue, white and red
- You : No rebuttal ? I proved French Flag is green and yellow
 

And you want to be taken seriously. You just put random stuff together and call that a "theory". You always dodge questions, and when you can't, you say your theory is incomplete and add properties to celestial bodies and/or aether, just like you did in the link I posted. You couldn't solve this only with aether, so you had to modify the Moon and the Sun to try to fill the huge hole in your explanation. It doesn't work like that, at all.

Oh, and btw, I'm very pleased you said that :

it occurs as a result of the sun's movements through the aether, so of course there's a connection there, the round earth equations simply work backwards, taking the conclusion for how such events occur, and working backwards

You're like jroa. The coefficients used in the equation to predict Eclipse are calculated with the RE Earth/Sun and Earth/Moon distances, yet that's a miracle, the equation gives the same result on a FE/DFE ? That's wonderful, what a coincidence !

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 06, 2015, 03:55:10 AM

elimist, my model has been refined multiple times, thanks in part due to such comments as conker's. i would suggest you start near the bottom of page two, where dual earth theory is fully outlined. after that point, also, there is a post describing aether in detail, and how there is no assumption in its existence. everything about it is a deduced trait of space, which we know exists.

Except the fact that space has not been observed to have any of the properties you say it has.

they have, you just reject all examples because you cling to fantasy.
also, the effects of relativity hadn't been observed when einstein came up with it. logical deduction and thought experiments are still valid ways to draw conclusions.

gefn, those coefficients were found as a result of observing the world. of course they work in explaining the world. that doesn't mean what people pretend they depend on is accurate.

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 06, 2015, 04:58:09 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 06, 2015, 03:55:10 AM

elimist, my model has been refined multiple times, thanks in part due to such comments as conker's. i would suggest you start near the bottom of page two, where dual earth theory is fully outlined. after that point, also, there is a post describing aether in detail, and how there is no assumption in its existence. everything about it is a deduced trait of space, which we know exists.

Except the fact that space has not been observed to have any of the properties you say it has.

they have, you just reject all examples because you cling to fantasy.
also, the effects of relativity hadn't been observed when einstein came up with it. logical deduction and thought experiments are still valid ways to draw conclusions.

The effect of GR is gravity, which is observed everywhere. Einstein was describing the "why" behind gravity, an already observed effect, and his theory was able to predict an addition of 43 arc seconds per century to the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Your theory does not explain any event that is observed in reality. It describes aetheric whirlpools and areas of high and low density aether, but these can't be proved to exist empirically.

You say you gave examples, and you did, but they don't describe anything in reality.