I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?

  • 81 Replies
  • 7359 Views
?

XaeXae

  • 132
  • Mountain Lions.
I asked this on another topic ( http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64409.0 ), but I didn't get any answers from FEers. Could you please give me a list of all of your arguments, or at least of the most important of them ?

Please don't post anything else on this topic.

 :)

*

JerkFace

  • 10534
  • Looking for Occam
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2015, 10:36:08 AM »
Marko provided a link to this on the other forum.   Thanks Opus.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/l679prcg097ny8u/200_Proofs_Earth_is_Not_a_Spinning_Ball!.pdf

It's   Eric Doobuymybook's  200 proofs,   mostly  Rowbotham et al regurgitated,   didn't see any new arguments. 

Happy debunking,

« Last Edit: September 09, 2015, 10:37:50 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

?

XaeXae

  • 132
  • Mountain Lions.
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2015, 10:56:56 AM »
Marko provided a link to this on the other forum.   Thanks Opus.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/l679prcg097ny8u/200_Proofs_Earth_is_Not_a_Spinning_Ball!.pdf

It's   Eric Doobuymybook's  200 proofs,   mostly  Rowbotham et al regurgitated,   didn't see any new arguments. 

Happy debunking,

I'm going to dismiss a few of them :)

1 : We already see a (very small) curvature of the horizon from weather balloons at about 40 km. This curvature is exactly the one expected by the RET.

2 : The horizon seems to rise with the observor's level because it is very far away. Consider a point 10 kilometers above the horizon. It will appear to be nearly at the same altitude, right ? Now imagine the opposite : you are at 10 kilometers above the horizon. Without any other reference point, it is hard to tell if the horizon really moved.

3 : RE calculations show that gravity is far more important than Earth rotation at this scale.

I could continue for a very long time like this, but I have other things to do.  ;)

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2015, 11:24:31 AM »
Here is an exhaustive list of flat Earth proof:

It kind of looks flat up close at first glance.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

?

XaeXae

  • 132
  • Mountain Lions.
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2015, 12:34:47 PM »
If someone is okay to debunk the 197 other arguments, he is free to do it :)

*

Pezevenk

  • 14052
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2015, 01:12:45 PM »
Marko provided a link to this on the other forum.   Thanks Opus.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/l679prcg097ny8u/200_Proofs_Earth_is_Not_a_Spinning_Ball!.pdf

It's   Eric Doobuymybook's  200 proofs,   mostly  Rowbotham et al regurgitated,   didn't see any new arguments. 

Happy debunking,

I'm going to dismiss a few of them :)

1 : We already see a (very small) curvature of the horizon from weather balloons at about 40 km. This curvature is exactly the one expected by the RET.

2 : The horizon seems to rise with the observor's level because it is very far away. Consider a point 10 kilometers above the horizon. It will appear to be nearly at the same altitude, right ? Now imagine the opposite : you are at 10 kilometers above the horizon. Without any other reference point, it is hard to tell if the horizon really moved.

3 : RE calculations show that gravity is far more important than Earth rotation at this scale.

I could continue for a very long time like this, but I have other things to do.  ;)

4: What an idiot...

5: Same as 4, plus the "only falls 1 foot" shit is relative to sea level, not an absolute value.

6: "As NASA and modern astronomy claim" I'm sorry, but even the ancient Greeks knew the Earth is round. Oh yeah, and if you multiply it by the square of the distance, you get a parabola, not a circle. And no, there is no single experiment that actually shows that, however, ships sinking below the horizon and only being able to see the tops of buildings is good proof that the earth is round.

7: Yeah, of course they are. Because the curvature is wayyy too little to be noticed like that. Those errors are corrected on the spot without anyone noticing, because the difference is too tiny. Besides, it's not much different than asking why they don't have to make allowances for the flat earth model (trying to build railways that go straight from east to west or vice versa would require them turning).

8: Same as 4 and 5.

9: ARE WE SERIOUSLY STILL DOING THIS?? WTF?  >:( ??? ::) >:(

10: GAAAAAH!

11: JUST STFU! FIND SOMETHING ELSE, DUMB MORON! YOU'RE KILLING ME!

12: ...

13: First of all, stop trying to calculate the curvature by squaring the distance. It's dumb beyond belief. Second, and how much would it appear to change over the distance of 100 miles? Here's a clue: not much. Even on a flat surface, it would already appear to be pretty close to the horizon. Even with the flawed calculation of 1.25 miles (which is WAYYY off), its apparent position would still change little.

14: Here we go again...

15: Airplanes point their nose upwards even when they are landing. Does that prevent them from going down? No. Instead of thinking it as half a mile a minute, think of it as 1/10 of a degree every 10 km. Don't you know what those altimeters are there for? Adjusting the altitude. The pilot's job or the autopilot's job is to find a way to keep the airplane level. You don't have to nose down a lot. Just a tiny bit for every 5 miles or something. Plus the calculation is utterly ridiculous, because it uses the squared distance.

16: It merely disproves aether.

17: This merely disproves that the universe has infinite stars and that the universe is static. This is actually in favor of the Big Bang and the expanding universe.

18: These experiments disprove the luminiferous aether hypothesis. Special relativity explains them.

19: That is utterly stupid. Anyone who knows how to use trigonometry can realize that no difference could ever be seen. When the Earth goes to the other side of the sun, it has changed its position by approximately 16 light minutes. The closest star is 4.24 light years away. Can you please give me the angle that has a tangent of 1/140000? Because my calculator isn't accurate enough, and it gives me 0.

And, finally, for now, 20: First of all, this is bullshit. It's impossible for cannonballs to be that accurate. Even with only the aerodynamic effects to be the variables, there isn't a chance the cannonballs would fall straight into the barrel. Also, does this guy think that when launched upwards, it stops moving? Because it still moves at 1000mph when it's launched upwards, idiot.

It's really tempting to debunk more, because it's so easy, but... I'll just stay to those for now.
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

*

Pezevenk

  • 14052
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2015, 01:13:39 PM »
If someone is okay to debunk the 197 other arguments, he is free to do it :)

It's not that hard. Besides, they're pretty much just the same thing over and over again. They could have easily been condensed to 50.
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

?

XaeXae

  • 132
  • Mountain Lions.
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2015, 04:07:27 PM »
I think these are more like 200 examples, not 200 arguments. Could be condensed into something like 20 - 30 arguments.

And, for the 7, I found an example of structure that takes in account Earth's curvature : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verrazano%E2%80%93Narrows_Bridge#Statistics

?

XaeXae

  • 132
  • Mountain Lions.
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #8 on: September 09, 2015, 04:24:10 PM »
Also, lots of these examples could be explained by the inertia of the body on Earth's surface (for example the 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29...) ;)

Even more of them are just misconceptions of the gravity theory, or of other scientific theories. ;)

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1978
  • Show me the evidence
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2015, 12:07:48 AM »
45 - My Aunt flies from Sydney to Johannesburg with no stop overs fairly often.
46 & 47 - Flown from Johannesburg to Buenos Airs and back via Sao Paolo to Johannesburg myself, all direct flights. Can confirm lots of ocean.

So much sillyness

*

Pezevenk

  • 14052
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2015, 01:49:59 AM »
Lol 21... This guy thinks that when you take off of the surface of the earth, you just suddenly stop moving...
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #11 on: September 10, 2015, 01:27:35 PM »
This is a rather extreme question. Listing every argument in any situation would be exhausting. In addition, there could be no arguments against a theory: another theory could still be better.

For me, what matters is not the flaws in the RE model, but the fact that the scientific explanation of the world with RE assumed has far too many gaps in.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

?

XaeXae

  • 132
  • Mountain Lions.
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #12 on: September 10, 2015, 02:38:08 PM »
This is a rather extreme question. Listing every argument in any situation would be exhausting.

What don't you understand in "at least the most important of them" ?

Oh, and learn the distinction between "argument" and "example". ;)

Quote
In addition, there could be no arguments against a theory: another theory could still be better.


How could FET be better than RET ? Occam's razor will destroy FET even if there are no arguments against it. ;D

Quote
For me, what matters is not the flaws in the RE model, but the fact that the scientific explanation of the world with RE assumed has far too many gaps in.

Too many gaps ? What gaps ? These gaps are the arguments I wait for !

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #13 on: September 10, 2015, 03:57:00 PM »
lol, you can just read google.  I am sure that you idiots can only copy/ paste and have no actual debate skills, but you don't have to advertise it all the time. 

*

Mikey T.

  • 2418
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #14 on: September 10, 2015, 04:46:57 PM »
I'm sure Eric Dubay is not considered an authority on flat Earth facts anyway but the arguments he posted shows a complete lack of the mental capacity to understand the size difference between a person and the Earth.  Many others are deliberate miscalculations to fool a naive person into drinking the cool-aid.  Definately Not Official made a good point earlier about train tracks.  Using teh FE logic of supposedly not accounting for the curvature of the Earth in their construction, you could say that train tracks running East-West or vice versa(same damn thing really) there is no accounting for the FE curvature left or right.  So if you had a completely straight set of railroad tracks, then there is no way it could go from East to West (once again or vice versa for you anal retentive types) and maintain a straight line.  Due East and due west could never be a straight path on a FE. 
As for the crack about debating skills, thank you jroa for the reminder of the biggest guns a FE person has against actual disproofs is a snide one liner which basically just insults their opponent.  No counterpoint, no offer of clarification about claims, just insulting behavior.  So queue some of the more colorful FE supporters on this forum to come in and give obviously flawed arguments sometimes completely misusing scientific terms (babble for anyone paying attention). 

There is one and only one argument that can stand as slight evidence for a Flat Earth.  It is measuring shadows from large distances apart.  It can actually mathematically be proven to be either the Earth is flat and the Sun is only 3000 miles away and very small or the same measurements can be used to determine the spherical circumference of the Earth.  One problem with this evidence is that if you measure the shadows assuming the Earth is flat, then the shadows will tell you that the sun gets closer to the Earth during morning and evening hours, yet your evening hours are midday for someone else and the same rules apply for them.  So how can it be closer and further away at the same time?  Also measuring these shadows from different latitudes (Farther North or South) it will give you different altitudes for the Sun.  But how can that be?  If you use the experiment data for what the experiment was designed for, then no matter where you are on the face of the Earth, no matter what time of the daylight hours you perform the experiment, the results for the circumference of the Earth are the same.  So which is simpler?  If the results for the experiment shows consistency with one argument but do not show consistency with the other argument, either the second argument is false or the math used is wrong.  I find it much simpler to see that the FE argument is incorrect rather than saying that math is wrong.  I find it simpler to believe in what I see, or have experienced first hand rather than thinking there is a massive conspiracy to hide the truth from me.  It is simpler to me to see that if mathematics works for everything we test it on that it is probably telling me the truth when used as a proof rather than saying math must be flawed since it doesn't agree with a paranoid state of mindset that needs a big dark scary conspiracy with all the trimmings for me to be special.
I prefer to believe in what I can test myself.  So far, with every test I can do myself its pretty much:
 FE = 0 vs  Science & Mathematics = (insert large number here, or any number of completed experiments done with proper controls)

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1978
  • Show me the evidence
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #15 on: September 10, 2015, 11:30:38 PM »
This is a rather extreme question. Listing every argument in any situation would be exhausting. In addition, there could be no arguments against a theory: another theory could still be better.

For me, what matters is not the flaws in the RE model, but the fact that the scientific explanation of the world with RE assumed has far too many gaps in.
Take on those flaws and see where the evidence leads you.
If there are such obvious flaws new evidence could lead to a Torus shaped world, your fixation on a flat world with no supporting evidence will get you nowhere.

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #16 on: September 11, 2015, 12:13:46 AM »
Now now children .The world is definitely round. Why? because micky had an extremely large set of testicles for a  mouse . Which was  inspirational at the time. The science communities all round the world  leaped in to action & the race was on  to confirm the  shape of earth was indeed mouse scrotum-ed .I kid you not  trendsetters .Long hours of butt slapping pandemonium & rogerring Rogers roger went in to buggering  out the figures.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2015, 12:15:33 AM by charles bloomington »
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don'tů:

?

XaeXae

  • 132
  • Mountain Lions.
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #17 on: September 11, 2015, 03:46:45 AM »
Now now children .The world is definitely round. Why? because micky had an extremely large set of testicles for a  mouse . Which was  inspirational at the time. The science communities all round the world  leaped in to action & the race was on  to confirm the  shape of earth was indeed mouse scrotum-ed .I kid you not  trendsetters .Long hours of butt slapping pandemonium & rogerring Rogers roger went in to buggering  out the figures.

What don't you understand in "Please don't post anything else on this topic" ? ???

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #18 on: September 11, 2015, 06:24:18 AM »
Quote
What don't you understand in "at least the most important of them" ?
How is it you believe arguments can so easily be divided like that? Further, it's rare that there is one or two clinching arguments; far more it's the weight of them that does the convincing.

Quote
How could FET be better than RET ? Occam's razor will destroy FET even if there are no arguments against it.
I am not sure you are aware of how Occam's Razor works. The claim you make is very bold, and only works because you are not addressing any model. You simply assume that there will never be evidence for any aspect of any FE theory. This is a claim that requires more justification than the fact you believe in a RE. It is meaningless in any serious discussion.

Quote
Too many gaps ? What gaps ? These gaps are the arguments I wait for !
No, they're not. General gaps in RE science are how the moon is not adequately understood or explained, why the Solar System is so empty and yet occupies such space (and resulted from one cloud), the Allais effect...
There could well be RE answers. The point is only that the quantity of gaps makes it worth questioning whether the model that includes them will be accurate.

Quote
If there are such obvious flaws new evidence could lead to a Torus shaped world, your fixation on a flat world with no supporting evidence will get you nowhere.
I am not fixated. I am examining a hypothesis: this is the scientific method. You cannot decide that this is pointless merely because you disagree with what I'm testing.
I am developing a FE model from the basics. A map that must be true, refinements to existing knowledge that must hold (and don't contradict existing knowledge)... This is not a fixation with no evidence, every step i take is based wholly on evidence. if it turns out that there is a necessary contradiction, or that an experiment to test the model goes against it when repeatedly performed, then I will reject FE theory. Until then, I will develop a working hypothesis because this is what scientists do.
This is the scientific method. You do not get to reject it because you would rather insult FE, nor can you merely assume I am not following it.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

*

Pezevenk

  • 14052
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #19 on: September 11, 2015, 06:57:27 AM »
Quote
What don't you understand in "at least the most important of them" ?
How is it you believe arguments can so easily be divided like that? Further, it's rare that there is one or two clinching arguments; far more it's the weight of them that does the convincing.

Quote
How could FET be better than RET ? Occam's razor will destroy FET even if there are no arguments against it.
I am not sure you are aware of how Occam's Razor works. The claim you make is very bold, and only works because you are not addressing any model. You simply assume that there will never be evidence for any aspect of any FE theory. This is a claim that requires more justification than the fact you believe in a RE. It is meaningless in any serious discussion.

Quote
Too many gaps ? What gaps ? These gaps are the arguments I wait for !
No, they're not. General gaps in RE science are how the moon is not adequately understood or explained, why the Solar System is so empty and yet occupies such space (and resulted from one cloud), the Allais effect...
There could well be RE answers. The point is only that the quantity of gaps makes it worth questioning whether the model that includes them will be accurate.

Quote
If there are such obvious flaws new evidence could lead to a Torus shaped world, your fixation on a flat world with no supporting evidence will get you nowhere.
I am not fixated. I am examining a hypothesis: this is the scientific method. You cannot decide that this is pointless merely because you disagree with what I'm testing.
I am developing a FE model from the basics. A map that must be true, refinements to existing knowledge that must hold (and don't contradict existing knowledge)... This is not a fixation with no evidence, every step i take is based wholly on evidence. if it turns out that there is a necessary contradiction, or that an experiment to test the model goes against it when repeatedly performed, then I will reject FE theory. Until then, I will develop a working hypothesis because this is what scientists do.
This is the scientific method. You do not get to reject it because you would rather insult FE, nor can you merely assume I am not following it.

What do you mean "the moon is not adequately understood or explained"? This makes little sense... What is it supposed to mean? Could you please elaborate? And how can you say that when the explanation of the FE model for the size of the planets is "pretty small"? I'm serious, that's all they've got about the other planets! Check the Wiki! "Pretty small". That's an adequate explanation I guess. And don't use that "without refinement" card again on me, because that nullifies your points about gaps. Then you say "why the Solar System is so empty and yet occupies such space (and resulted from one cloud)". I don't know what your problem about this is. It's obvious that the planets are much more dense than gases. Why not be that empty? It makes perfect sense to me. It's like trying to assemble little balls from all the dust flying around in your house. I bet they wouldn't be that close to each other.

As for the Allais effect, it's a bit hard to determine what exactly is going on with it. Half of the experiments say that it wasn't observed, half say that is was, and nobody knows exactly what is going on. I've seen some explanations, but there doesn't seem to be a conclusive one. But including it in your "gaps" of RE is a bit of a trap, as it was observed with a Foucault pendulum, something that flat earthers reject as fake or rigged or whatever, because there is no way to explain it on a flat earth.
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #20 on: September 11, 2015, 04:10:14 PM »
Quote
What do you mean "the moon is not adequately understood or explained"? This makes little sense... What is it supposed to mean? Could you please elaborate?
When a planet like the Earth, with a weak gravitational field, has a satellite, we'd predict it to maybe be 30 miles in diameter: the moon is 2160 miles. Moon rocks are magnetised despite the fact the moon has no magnetic field. The oldest moon rocks are dated to be older than the Earth: and I recall reading one was dated 5.3 billion years, older than our Solar System. There are elements like Uranium 236 and Neptunium 237, which do not occur naturally, in said rocks. In addition, there is no way for the moon to be an asteroid captured by the Earth, such as Mars' moons (Mars being close to the asteroid belt) as it is far too big to have been caught by the Earth.
Those are the easiest facts to note. Then there are conveniences: how it so perfectly rotates such that only one side faces us, how it's positioned just so it blots out the Sun almost precisely during an eclipse...

Quote
And how can you say that when the explanation of the FE model for the size of the planets is "pretty small"? I'm serious, that's all they've got about the other planets! Check the Wiki! "Pretty small". That's an adequate explanation I guess. And don't use that "without refinement" card again on me, because that nullifies your points about gaps.
RE theory has has much more time to answer questions, and has the opportunity to answer these questions for quite some time: they're basic compared to half of what's being studied. A question unanswered in a major, popularly researched field of study means far, far more than an unanwered question in an area accepted by a few dozen people, most of which refuse to do research.

Quote
Then you say "why the Solar System is so empty and yet occupies such space (and resulted from one cloud)". I don't know what your problem about this is. It's obvious that the planets are much more dense than gases. Why not be that empty? It makes perfect sense to me. It's like trying to assemble little balls from all the dust flying around in your house. I bet they wouldn't be that close to each other.
Certainly, it makes sense at a basic level, but have you thought of how much matter, even in an approximately gaseous form, to fill, for example, Neptune's orbit? (excluding Pluto as it is most likely a captured comet). We would expect far more planets to fill that space, rather than it being drawn to just fill specific sections at drastically increasing distances.

Quote
As for the Allais effect, it's a bit hard to determine what exactly is going on with it. Half of the experiments say that it wasn't observed, half say that is was, and nobody knows exactly what is going on. I've seen some explanations, but there doesn't seem to be a conclusive one. But including it in your "gaps" of RE is a bit of a trap, as it was observed with a Foucault pendulum, something that flat earthers reject as fake or rigged or whatever, because there is no way to explain it on a flat earth.
Your claim 'there is no way to explain it on a flat Earth' is an unjustified one; the best you can say is that it has not yet been explained. Even so, the Allais effect has been repeatedly reported; far more than an error of measurement would be. The fact it doesn't always occur doesn't mean it doesn't occur. There's been too much corroboration.
If the RE model does not explain the behavior of Foucalt pendulums, why are they touted as an advantage over FE?
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

*

chtwrone

  • 443
  • Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #21 on: September 11, 2015, 10:59:03 PM »
lol, you can just read google.  I am sure that you idiots can only copy/ paste and have no actual debate skills, but you don't have to advertise it all the time.

You constantly bemoan references to Wikipedia and google, but the only references you use are your own ignorant opinions.

So why should we take any notice of you and your ignorant thoughts - you're obviously not educated or knowledgeable enough to take any notice of - you're a big fat nobody who talks shit.

Your stupid flat earth theory falls to bits completely when you're asked to explain the well documented and confirmed FACT of 24 hour Antarctic summer sun.
Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again.

?

XaeXae

  • 132
  • Mountain Lions.
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #22 on: September 12, 2015, 03:13:44 AM »
Quote
What do you mean "the moon is not adequately understood or explained"? This makes little sense... What is it supposed to mean? Could you please elaborate?
When a planet like the Earth, with a weak gravitational field, has a satellite, we'd predict it to maybe be 30 miles in diameter: the moon is 2160 miles. Moon rocks are magnetised despite the fact the moon has no magnetic field. The oldest moon rocks are dated to be older than the Earth: and I recall reading one was dated 5.3 billion years, older than our Solar System. There are elements like Uranium 236 and Neptunium 237, which do not occur naturally, in said rocks. In addition, there is no way for the moon to be an asteroid captured by the Earth, such as Mars' moons (Mars being close to the asteroid belt) as it is far too big to have been caught by the Earth.
Those are the easiest facts to note. Then there are conveniences: how it so perfectly rotates such that only one side faces us, how it's positioned just so it blots out the Sun almost precisely during an eclipse...

This is a false dichotomy. Earth didn't capture a satellite, but, after a collision with a protoplanet of our solar system, ejected a big part of its internal constituents, that formed the moon. These things were magnetised, so the Moon magnetisation is also explained. For Uranium/Neptunium, same logic : they already occured in Earth. For the moon rock datation, show me where you found this, because it doesn't look very credible.

Quote
Quote
And how can you say that when the explanation of the FE model for the size of the planets is "pretty small"? I'm serious, that's all they've got about the other planets! Check the Wiki! "Pretty small". That's an adequate explanation I guess. And don't use that "without refinement" card again on me, because that nullifies your points about gaps.
RE theory has has much more time to answer questions, and has the opportunity to answer these questions for quite some time: they're basic compared to half of what's being studied. A question unanswered in a major, popularly researched field of study means far, far more than an unanwered question in an area accepted by a few dozen people, most of which refuse to do research.

Basically the planet size question is answered. It has been proven that the size of the other planets are more or less the same as that of Earth.

Quote
Quote
Then you say "why the Solar System is so empty and yet occupies such space (and resulted from one cloud)". I don't know what your problem about this is. It's obvious that the planets are much more dense than gases. Why not be that empty? It makes perfect sense to me. It's like trying to assemble little balls from all the dust flying around in your house. I bet they wouldn't be that close to each other.
Certainly, it makes sense at a basic level, but have you thought of how much matter, even in an approximately gaseous form, to fill, for example, Neptune's orbit? (excluding Pluto as it is most likely a captured comet). We would expect far more planets to fill that space, rather than it being drawn to just fill specific sections at drastically increasing distances.

The protoplanetary disc was very, very smaller than Neptune, and very, very empty. Outer planets were just ejected, according to the planetary formation model.

Quote
Quote
As for the Allais effect, it's a bit hard to determine what exactly is going on with it. Half of the experiments say that it wasn't observed, half say that is was, and nobody knows exactly what is going on. I've seen some explanations, but there doesn't seem to be a conclusive one. But including it in your "gaps" of RE is a bit of a trap, as it was observed with a Foucault pendulum, something that flat earthers reject as fake or rigged or whatever, because there is no way to explain it on a flat earth.
Your claim 'there is no way to explain it on a flat Earth' is an unjustified one; the best you can say is that it has not yet been explained. Even so, the Allais effect has been repeatedly reported; far more than an error of measurement would be. The fact it doesn't always occur doesn't mean it doesn't occur. There's been too much corroboration.
If the RE model does not explain the behavior of Foucalt pendulums, why are they touted as an advantage over FE?
[/quote]

RE model explain the behavior of the Foucault pendulum... ::)

The experiments to search the Allais effect were done 5 times (with only 3 positive results), with no well-defined experimental protocol. And even if it isn't a measurement error, it doesn't question the viability of the RE model, just because it's not related to the shape of the Earth !

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1978
  • Show me the evidence
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #23 on: September 12, 2015, 03:33:18 AM »
FEScietist, you said you where trying to show a FE using existing science. But then you said all these things.

Quote
1 When a planet like the Earth, with a weak gravitational field, has a satellite, we'd predict it to maybe be 30 miles in diameter: the moon is 2160 miles.2 Moon rocks are magnetised despite the fact the moon has no magnetic field. 3The oldest moon rocks are dated to be older than the Earth: and I recall reading one was dated 5.3 billion years, older than our Solar System. 4There are elements like Uranium 236 and Neptunium 237, which do not occur naturally, in said rocks. In addition, there is no way for the moon to be an asteroid captured by the Earth, such as Mars' moons (Mars being close to the asteroid belt) as it is far too big to have been caught by the Earth.
Those are the easiest facts to note. 5Then there are conveniences: how it so perfectly rotates such that only one side faces us, 6how it's positioned just so it blots out the Sun almost precisely during an eclipse...

1Any two bodies can orbit each other regardless of size. Did you know that the earth has thousands of tiny satellites orbiting it too. Small satellites are however less stable and can degrade relatively quickly, especially when you have something as massive as the moon also in the system. Anything orbiting the earth with the moon around would either get kicked out or pulled into either of the bodies. Thats why we only have one Moon.
2 The moon does have a small magnetic field
3 The oldest rocks on the moon can easily be older than the earth and moon. They just did not come from the moon. This is no giant leap of thought. The moon has no way to weather material on its surface such as the earth, so it is an ideal place to find meteorites.
4 The leading theory of how the moon was formed - a giant meteor collided with earth 4.something billion years ago, the throw off formed the moon. Supporting material composition shows this to be a fair theory. As for the other elements found on the moon, see 3
5 This is a consequence of 2 large objects orbiting each other at such a close distance. If the moon was much heavier the earth would be doing the same. Fortunately for us, the earth wins the battle of mass, and the moon becomes tidally locked with us. No coincidence.
6 This is actually mostly a coincidence of time more than size. the moon is moving further away from us by a few mm each year. SO a few million years ago it was much larger than the sun in the sky.

Quote
RE theory has has much more time to answer questions, and has the opportunity to answer these questions for quite some time: they're basic compared to half of what's being studied. A question unanswered in a major, popularly researched field of study means far, far more than an unanwered question in an area accepted by a few dozen people, most of which refuse to do research.
It is also easier to study the shape of the world. You dont need a heck lot of time to find the shape of the planet nowa days.

Quote
Certainly, it makes sense at a basic level, but have you thought of how much matter, even in an approximately gaseous form, to fill, for example, Neptune's orbit? (excluding Pluto as it is most likely a captured comet). We would expect far more planets to fill that space, rather than it being drawn to just fill specific sections at drastically increasing distances.
No we would not expect more planets to fill those gaps.
First all the mass in the solar system would go the center of it gravity . . the sun, where 99% of the mass in the solar system is. Then close to the sun are the heavy elements and rocky planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. As you get further away from the center the amount of mass in the solar system is expected to go down. Jupiter has a massive orbit so it can take in a massive amount of material. But overall Jupiter's density is very low, same with the other outer planets. The solar system is formed exactly as expected.
Your statement would only be true if the solar system had an average mass distribution all the way to the outer planets during planet formation stage. There is no way that could have happened.

*

Pezevenk

  • 14052
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #24 on: September 12, 2015, 03:57:17 AM »
Quote
What do you mean "the moon is not adequately understood or explained"? This makes little sense... What is it supposed to mean? Could you please elaborate?
When a planet like the Earth, with a weak gravitational field, has a satellite, we'd predict it to maybe be 30 miles in diameter: the moon is 2160 miles. Moon rocks are magnetised despite the fact the moon has no magnetic field. The oldest moon rocks are dated to be older than the Earth: and I recall reading one was dated 5.3 billion years, older than our Solar System. There are elements like Uranium 236 and Neptunium 237, which do not occur naturally, in said rocks. In addition, there is no way for the moon to be an asteroid captured by the Earth, such as Mars' moons (Mars being close to the asteroid belt) as it is far too big to have been caught by the Earth.
Those are the easiest facts to note. Then there are conveniences: how it so perfectly rotates such that only one side faces us, how it's positioned just so it blots out the Sun almost precisely during an eclipse...

Quote
And how can you say that when the explanation of the FE model for the size of the planets is "pretty small"? I'm serious, that's all they've got about the other planets! Check the Wiki! "Pretty small". That's an adequate explanation I guess. And don't use that "without refinement" card again on me, because that nullifies your points about gaps.
RE theory has has much more time to answer questions, and has the opportunity to answer these questions for quite some time: they're basic compared to half of what's being studied. A question unanswered in a major, popularly researched field of study means far, far more than an unanwered question in an area accepted by a few dozen people, most of which refuse to do research.

Quote
Then you say "why the Solar System is so empty and yet occupies such space (and resulted from one cloud)". I don't know what your problem about this is. It's obvious that the planets are much more dense than gases. Why not be that empty? It makes perfect sense to me. It's like trying to assemble little balls from all the dust flying around in your house. I bet they wouldn't be that close to each other.
Certainly, it makes sense at a basic level, but have you thought of how much matter, even in an approximately gaseous form, to fill, for example, Neptune's orbit? (excluding Pluto as it is most likely a captured comet). We would expect far more planets to fill that space, rather than it being drawn to just fill specific sections at drastically increasing distances.

Quote
As for the Allais effect, it's a bit hard to determine what exactly is going on with it. Half of the experiments say that it wasn't observed, half say that is was, and nobody knows exactly what is going on. I've seen some explanations, but there doesn't seem to be a conclusive one. But including it in your "gaps" of RE is a bit of a trap, as it was observed with a Foucault pendulum, something that flat earthers reject as fake or rigged or whatever, because there is no way to explain it on a flat earth.
Your claim 'there is no way to explain it on a flat Earth' is an unjustified one; the best you can say is that it has not yet been explained. Even so, the Allais effect has been repeatedly reported; far more than an error of measurement would be. The fact it doesn't always occur doesn't mean it doesn't occur. There's been too much corroboration.
If the RE model does not explain the behavior of Foucalt pendulums, why are they touted as an advantage over FE?

What? You make no sense! "When a planet like the Earth, with a weak gravitational field, has a satellite, we'd predict it to maybe be 30 miles in diameter: the moon is 2160 miles." What is this supposed to mean? How do you reach to that conclusion? Because it makes no sense!

Now about the magnetization of rocks. The moon is said to have once had a weak magnetic field, but not anymore. What about the age of the rocks? These rocks come from craters. They are likely ancient asteroids that hit the moon. I've never heard of Neptunium on the moon, but Uranium also exists on Earth. It's mostly because of solar flares. Wait. Are you using moon rocks to disprove RET? That makes little sense... If moon rocks are real, then Apollo 17 is real, then... The earth is round...

"In addition, there is no way for the moon to be an asteroid captured by the Earth, such as Mars' moons (Mars being close to the asteroid belt) as it is far too big to have been caught by the Earth."

That's both true and false. First of all, the prevailing theory is that a Mars-sized planet hit the Earth, and from the debris the moon was created. But size does not pose a concern. No matter what the mass of the object is, the acceleration will be the same as it would be if you were being pulled towards the ground. Then you would also have the fact that the Earth itself would accelerate towards the other object.

"Then there are conveniences: how it so perfectly rotates such that only one side faces us"

Look up tidal locking.

"how it's positioned just so it blots out the Sun almost precisely during an eclipse..."

That's just a coincidence. It could be a little bit smaller, it could be a little bit larger, who cares. It happens to be that way.

"RE theory has has much more time to answer questions, and has the opportunity to answer these questions for quite some time: they're basic compared to half of what's being studied. A question unanswered in a major, popularly researched field of study means far, far more than an unanwered question in an area accepted by a few dozen people, most of which refuse to do research."

That's the excuse? Less time? Planets are very basic. FET should have had an adequate explanation for them by now. And it's not just a few dozens of people. I think there are like 3000 active flat earthers or something. Now what's your problem with the RE explanation of planets?

"Certainly, it makes sense at a basic level, but have you thought of how much matter, even in an approximately gaseous form, to fill, for example, Neptune's orbit? (excluding Pluto as it is most likely a captured comet). We would expect far more planets to fill that space, rather than it being drawn to just fill specific sections at drastically increasing distances."

Why? Can you please elaborate? Most of the material went to the sun. Some of it was totally lost, as it escaped the sun's sphere of influence. Then there are tons of it in the asteroid belt and the Kuiper belt. Then are the planets. Then there's also the fact that even before all that, the gaseous material wasn't as dense as you seem to think. The solar system was likely in the condition that you say during its birth.

"Your claim 'there is no way to explain it on a flat Earth' is an unjustified one; the best you can say is that it has not yet been explained. Even so, the Allais effect has been repeatedly reported; far more than an error of measurement would be. The fact it doesn't always occur doesn't mean it doesn't occur. There's been too much corroboration.
If the RE model does not explain the behavior of Foucalt pendulums, why are they touted as an advantage over FE?"

Here we go again, "It does not explain it but it will with further refinement blah blah blah...". And I bet it will never be explained in a way that makes sense.

Why is the Foucault pendulum touted as an advantage over FE? Because the RE model DOES explain the behavior of Foucault pendulums. The Allais effect is the "exception of the rule", and there are ways to explain it, it's just that there isn't a single conclusive one that the mainstream entirely accepts. Also, there are many very precise experiments that show no such effect to be present, so we really don't have enough evidence to do anything with them.

Some of what you say are still mysteries that have some explanations, some is just stuff that makes no sense and that has already been explained.
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

*

Pezevenk

  • 14052
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #25 on: September 12, 2015, 04:04:32 AM »
MaNaeSWolf explained it better.
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #26 on: September 12, 2015, 10:52:36 AM »
Quote
FEScietist, you said you where trying to show a FE using existing science. But then you said all these things.
Certainly, I am wary of such statements. I have expressed my skepticism over the Allais effect previously; my point is only that many typical models fail to work. Vast suppositions are required, with no evidence except for "This is what we need to explain observations."
My point of contention is that this sole factor, which is used so frequently in RE science, is anathema as soon as it is used to help develop a FE model.

For example, Neptunium and Uranium don't occur naturally: they're by-products of nuclear explosions. I've seen it proposed that the moon formed when a nuclear explosion naturally occurred on proto-Earth: why? Because this is what must have happened in order for observations to occur.
All I ask is that you don't decide that this principle may only ever be used in RE science. Look at, for example, how everyone used 'coincidence' in response to my point of the relative sizes of the moon, Earth and Sun.

Quote
Wait. Are you using moon rocks to disprove RET? That makes little sense... If moon rocks are real, then Apollo 17 is real, then... The earth is round...
Or the astronauts were mistaken by observation. Or it's made up and they picked up some rocks from Earth to examine, in which case the properties are explained. if the properties of the moon rocks do not make sense under RE then you need to alter your theory, regardless. Proof by contradiction: I assume your state of affairs is accurate, and show it leads to a contradiction. How exactly does this fail to make sense? I do not need to believe the moon rocks are genuine, to acknowledge the fact you do.

Quote
That's the excuse? Less time?
Yes. There are 554 members of the FES, and I doubt all of them are who they say. Next to none of them are active on this forum, and you must admit that those who are, are rarely scientific. There are biblical literalists, or conspiracy theorists: not scientists.
Planets can't be explained before everything else is explained. Planets can't be explained in any more detail than "hunks or rock," until gravity, the Sun, the mechanisms governing the system... and any things which might interfere with our observations of them are also fully explained.

Quote
Why is the Foucault pendulum touted as an advantage over FE? Because the RE model DOES explain the behavior of Foucault pendulums.
If you need to use the phrase 'exception that proves the rule,' then the explanation is not perfect. This is not a flaw: this is often necessary. The fact is, if a FE model can explain the effect while RE struggles, after an FE model is arrived at which explains everything else, this is a mark in FE's favour, and so should be kept track of.
Yes, the evidence is ambiguous, but there is still enough to indicate that it is likely that more is at play: the fact it doesn't occur every time doesn't mean it doesn't occur.

Quote
it doesn't question the viability of the RE model, just because it's not related to the shape of the Earth !
Not directly. There are more than direct implications in the world. the physics in an FE model are different: if these allow for an explanation while RE physics do not, this is an advantage to FE.
Not everything is direct. If I could somehow show the Sun wasn't composed of hydrogen, that doesn't directly link to the shape of the world, but it would be a major blow to RE physics because the FE model could function very well without it.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

*

sokarul

  • 17070
  • Discount Chemist
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #27 on: September 12, 2015, 11:45:36 AM »
Uranium occurs naturally. It's actually more abundant than you think.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #28 on: September 12, 2015, 11:50:16 AM »
Uranium occurs naturally. It's actually more abundant than you think.
I am aware. This is why I specifically referred to the isotope Uranium 236.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

*

sokarul

  • 17070
  • Discount Chemist
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #29 on: September 12, 2015, 11:55:05 AM »
Uranium occurs naturally. It's actually more abundant than you think.
I am aware. This is why I specifically referred to the isotope Uranium 236.
That would be helpful if you said that the first time.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run