Dual Earth Theory

  • 197 Replies
  • 15130 Views
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #60 on: December 07, 2015, 10:38:49 PM »
HOW ABOUT YOU TAKE THE TIME TO ACTUALLY LEARN THE SLIGHTEST THING ABOUT WHAT YOU WHINE ABOUT RATHER THAN SKIM TWO OR THREE SENTENCES AND IGNORE EVERY WORD OF CONTEXT AND REFUSE TO PUT ANY THOUGHT INTO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AT ALL?!
You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn. I am happy to explain DET when you do more than whine about what's been covered in detail already. LEARN THE FUCKING MODEL OR FUCK OFF.
I wanted to learn the model. That is why I read your brief description. From the very beginning to the very end. I found few things I wanted to ask, because they did not make a sense or I was not sure how to understand them. Thanks for trash answer ("learn the model" thing over and over).

It is hilarious that you spam everyone they should learn the model, but when they start questioning things they do not understand, and they ask them directly to the creator of the model, all they receive is raging, personal calling, cursing or "learn the model" trash talk.

Thanks for not explaining anything. I will not waste more of my time on your pseudo-science.

*

sircool

  • 426
  • flat, round, whatever throats your goat
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #61 on: December 08, 2015, 04:36:27 AM »
"Its not a theory"

"And yet you NEVER offer the SLIGHTEST FUCKING THING to justify your claims, you justc oming in acting like an arrogant penguin and whine that people dare to disagree with you. Grow up. "

Extracts:
 "Therefore, if you want experiments to justify DET, there is your answer: all of them. Their predictions match with DET, far more than they do with the inelegant patchwork of RET. "

"A word on space travel: under DET, it is impossible. The higher you go, the thicker aether becomes, creating more and more difficulty. Rockets fail. "

Assumptions:
Now I would say Newtons laws of motion represents what you call RET, and we normal people call science. As I have interpreted your claim, is to say that all space travel is impossible.

Experiment:
Let me construct an experiment that will match your hypothesis, and if not, then it must be rejected and never become a theory.

Construct a rocket that can reach orbital speed(Calculus/newton), get rocket to upper atmosphere to reduce friction, accelerate to orbit.

Predictions:
Newton predicted that rocket will stay in orbit until speed is reduced. You predict that the rocket will never reach upper atmosphere. Newton will also give you the exact time.

Observation:
Look up into the sky, use binoculars and you will ser satellites and the ISS. These observations would be impossible on the parameters of your hypothesis.

Conclude?
We know of course space travel is happening as we speak and has been happening for many decades. Your hypothesis is rejected.


That was alot of my time to actually read DEF, I have answered your request, even tho I didn't need to to prove my point. Now I demand that you respond to this or I'll know you are not serious about DEF, either way I win.
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #62 on: December 08, 2015, 08:43:33 AM »
Quote
Don't know why nobody thought of this before. Now you can see for yourself what we're talking about.
Uh, because there's an openly available link that's far easier to access in the OP, rather than midway down a random page?

Quote
I wanted to learn the model. That is why I read your brief description. From the very beginning to the very end. I found few things I wanted to ask, because they did not make a sense or I was not sure how to understand them. Thanks for trash answer ("learn the model" thing over and over).
What you said was EXPLICITLY addressed in the model, and anyone who actually read it would see it. Do you think you wouldn't get called out on lies?
I will call you out on bullshit if that's all you provide. All you did was demand that I repeat what was already clearly explained in the model, and I'm sick of REers like you who think it's somehow funny to demand I waste my time.

Quote
Thanks for not explaining anything.
I answered all your questions, and those that were not were explained in the model. What I said was easily verifiable, but of course, you refuse to check that, and you just sit there content in the fact no REer will call you out on your lies. If you're so secure in your model why is all you rely on dishonest tactics?
I do lose my temper sometimes, as anyone would when dealing with the number of arrogant penguins and trolls on this forum, so I may have spoken harsher than you necessarily needed, but the fact remains most of what you asked was EXPLICITLY ADDRESSED IN THE MODEL. Consider reading and occasionally double-checking rather than skimming once and considering yourself an expert.

Quote
That was alot of my time to actually read DEF, I have answered your request, even tho I didn't need to to prove my point.
You very much did need to: if you are going to make a claim, the most basic thing for you to do would be to know what it is you're talking about. Why is that somehow a controversial statement?!
You were lying about DET, and doing so with no understanding of anything you said: you simply assumed it was wrong. Assertion has no place in any debate.

Quote
Now I demand that you respond to this or I'll know you are not serious about DEF, either way I win.
Win what? The ISS/satellite argument has been debunked countless times by even classical FET. Unless you have more than a tired old stock argument, DET stands.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

sircool

  • 426
  • flat, round, whatever throats your goat
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #63 on: December 08, 2015, 08:48:47 AM »
But your hypothesis is based on a conspiracy, how can that ever be a theory?

Uhh, the argument perhaps??
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #64 on: December 08, 2015, 09:04:50 AM »
But your hypothesis is based on a conspiracy, how can that ever be a theory?

Uhh, the argument perhaps??

The conspiracy is a conclusion, not an assumption.
You don't win an argument by repeating a tired old cliche.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #65 on: December 08, 2015, 09:19:35 AM »
Quote
Quote
4. Evidence

The first question to ask is simple: what is evidence?
The answer is just as simple: observation.

What types of observations?
Quote
Quote
There is no form of evidence beyond this. To have evidence for a model, you need only observe something in line with what that model predicts. This is what science is based on: this is all there is. The best possible kind of model is one that explains all observations proposed.

And what specific example you have?
Quote
Quote
Note, also, that experiments are merely a special case of observation. They are just a specific way to observe the rules of the world when applied to a controlled setting.

What specific example?
Quote
Quote
Therefore, if you want experiments to justify DET, there is your answer: all of them. Their predictions match with DET, far more than they do with the inelegant patchwork of RET.

That is one of the vaguest statements I have ever heard.
Quote
Quote
This doesn't mean much. Given enough time, any model could come up with explanations for everything. This is why we have Occam's Razor: to sort between two possible models, both explaining equal amounts, the question is which has more assumptions.

How exactly does Occam's razor disprove the round earth and favors DET?
Quote
Quote
Recall your experience reading these pages. All of DET falls into place from our definition of aether; so excluding assumptions shared between models (such as the origin of matter) the only one under DET is the idea of aether forming concentrations and travelling from high to low. Now, both of these are logical: deduced in the same way we may deduce any law.
To compare this to RET however, we need only look at the most obvious aspect not shared between them: gravity. The RE model of gravity is an unexplained property of mass bending space, and an unexplained consequence of this bending.
At the very least, the two models are equal: but note also how reasonable the DE assumptions are. Bith have some evidence behind them, while the RE model relies on hope.
You haven't actually proven Aether to begin with as I will show you in the next post.
Quote
Quote
It is simple hypocrisy to say this is not enough. You are more than welcome to provide an example of evidence which you believe does not match the definition given above: and if you cannot, you must concede that this definition holds, and therefore what follows from it is true.

It isn't enough if you haven't proved Aether in the first place.
Quote
Quote
Occam's Razor favors DET over RET. [/quote
Mantra. It's true because you say so.
Quote
Quote
That should be enough. There is one specific experiment that may be performed to confirm the DE model over the RE model, though it requires resources I do not have.
DET predicts that refraction will increase with altitude, due to the whirlpools, and that it will do so discontinuously. This discontinuity is the key: it is unexplainable over RET.
If you have the means to measure refraction accurate, and can see a change over several significant figures with altitude, as a result of that means, then please let me know. Simply increasing in altitude (thanks to, for example, a balloon) while measuring will allow us to see whether this change is continuous, or not, and could provide the final proof of DET.

Refraction decrease with altitude. I'll find a link that proves it and then I'll tackle the Aether part of your model.

The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

sircool

  • 426
  • flat, round, whatever throats your goat
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #66 on: December 08, 2015, 09:20:34 AM »
No, well it may be what some people call a conspiracy theory, but no scientist would ever call a conspiracy theory valid.
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #67 on: December 08, 2015, 09:23:08 AM »
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #68 on: December 08, 2015, 09:28:51 AM »
Quote
No, well it may be what some people call a conspiracy theory, but no scientist would ever call a conspiracy theory valid.
You cannot reject something simply because you do not like the conclusion. That is not scientific.

Quote
What types of observations?
And what specific example you have?
What specific example?
That is one of the vaguest statements I have ever heard.
Repeating the same question multiple times when the answer is given a few lines later is just childish: and I notice you refuse to address the answer. A categoric statement is not vague: it is widely applicable, and clear in each case.

Quote
How exactly does Occam's razor disprove the round earth and favors DET?
You haven't actually proven Aether to begin with as I will show you in the next post.
It isn't enough if you haven't proved Aether in the first place.
Beginning with refusing to read, and ending with a straw man.

Quote
Refraction decrease with altitude. I'll find a link that proves it and then I'll tackle the Aether part of your model.
Refraction in the vertical direction, not the horizontal.

http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

sircool

  • 426
  • flat, round, whatever throats your goat
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #69 on: December 08, 2015, 09:56:02 AM »
I did not reject it because I did not like it, the story was fine. Your hypothesis about space travel on the other hand is very easy to reject, I have done so many times my self.
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #70 on: December 08, 2015, 10:41:28 AM »
I did not reject it because I did not like it, the story was fine. Your hypothesis about space travel on the other hand is very easy to reject, I have done so many times my self.

Again, the non-existence space travel is a conclusion. You reject it with no evidence beyond the assertion the numerous FE responses are wrong: that is not scientific.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

sircool

  • 426
  • flat, round, whatever throats your goat
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #71 on: December 08, 2015, 11:02:22 AM »
I did not reject it because I did not like it, the story was fine. Your hypothesis about space travel on the other hand is very easy to reject, I have done so many times my self.

Again, the non-existence space travel is a conclusion. You reject it with no evidence beyond the assertion the numerous FE responses are wrong: that is not scientific.

That is your opinion, I reject it with alot of evidence, my favourite is this
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #72 on: December 08, 2015, 11:05:14 AM »


Is that in space?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

sircool

  • 426
  • flat, round, whatever throats your goat
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #73 on: December 08, 2015, 11:17:05 AM »


Is that in space?

Well, in some sence yes!

I did not reject it because I did not like it, the story was fine. Your hypothesis about space travel on the other hand is very easy to reject, I have done so many times my self.

Again, the non-existence space travel is a conclusion. You reject it with no evidence beyond the assertion the numerous FE responses are wrong: that is not scientific.

That is your opinion, I reject it with alot of evidence, my favourite is this


But do you seriously think that this non aerodynamic object(ISS) could fly in our atmosphere?
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #74 on: December 08, 2015, 11:35:41 AM »
Quote
1. Aether
Quote
Aether is space; by which I mean, the fabric of space (which I'll define properly later). I use the term aether because it is more well-known in FET (albeit with a different definition), and it tends to make phrasing clearer, once the definition's understood. Outer space, for example, is called space: which can be misleading. In addition, I could refer to 'more aether in a certain space', in which case 'space' is meant colloquially: from an external perspective, how it might seem.
How do you know (1) that Aether is what you said and (2) how you know space has a fabric to it?
Quote
Anyway, to properly define, aether is the fabric of space: it is the dimension that is how we define distance. More aether means more distance: less aether, less distance. In this way, if we have more aether in a certain space, we have a stretch which, from an external perspective, would seem the same size as another spot, but from an internal perspective, is far longer.
So there's a foot of Aether right next to me? How do you know that Aether is what you defined?
Quote
A useful analogy is a spring. If you travel along the coils themselves then, no matter what, it's the same distance from A to B. However, the spring can be stretched out, or condensed: that set distance can get you from one place to another, when another route might take several compressed springs to do the same journey.

It's only useful if we know that it exists in the first place.
Quote
That's the basic definition. All that we have done so far is make a definition; none of this requires evidence. You could call it anything, all I do is choose an easier word.

Ok.
Quote
We can tell that aether exists as an actual something: even RET accepts this. Relativity forms one example, where space is viewed as a fabric, not a mere direction.
I don't, at least as a proven fact.
Quote
It's trivial to note that this exists in concentrations: next to nothing is a binary in reality (even things like "Does it exist or not?" get murky at the quantum level). Even REers acknowledge there is such a thing as no space (ie: it began to exist): it follows there is a difference between the existence of space, and the non-existence of space. It's simple to then conclude there is a difference in the amount of aether that exists at various points. If that is unconvincing, mark it as an assumption: all theories are based on some (such as the definition if gravity relying on an assumption about mass, and the consequences of bent space).
It's also simple to note that, as we exist in (sort of on, terminology's confusing) aether, when aether moves, we will move with it.

You haven't given an example of how to prove that it exists.
Quote
All this is fairly easy to deduce, even if it seems a useless hypothetical. We'll get onto what the means for the shape of the world on the next page. 

How it applies to earth is useless until you prove the basic premis that Aether exists.
Quote
The last thing is one of the most important. We observe a universal tendency in the world: we see it in pressure, diffusion... Things move from areas of high concentrations, to low. If you blow up a balloon, the slightly compressed air (a high concentration) within the balloon will rush out, to the lower concentration around us. As this behavior appears universal, we may assume that the same holds for the aether: that if a high concentration and low concentration of aether are adjacent, they will begin to even themselves out, much of the high moving to the low.
The reason this is a fair thing to do is used at a fair few places in science. Take the Laws of Thermodynamics: clearly, they have not been tested for all places, at all times, with all things. However, we're all very happy to conclude that in a closed system, net entropy never decreases.
And what evidence you have that it exists?
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #75 on: December 08, 2015, 01:24:44 PM »
Quote
But do you seriously think that this non aerodynamic object(ISS) could fly in our atmosphere?
Certainly. Aerodynamicism aids efficiency, it's not required.

Quote
How do you know (1) that Aether is what you said
So there's a foot of Aether right next to me? How do you know that Aether is what you defined?
It's only useful if we know that it exists in the first place.
Look, more childish repitition of a trivially simple concept explained later. It's a definition.

Quote
and (2) how you know space has a fabric to it?
I don't, at least as a proven fact.
You haven't given an example of how to prove that it exists.
How it applies to earth is useless until you prove the basic premis that Aether exists.
And what evidence you have that it exists?
Deciding just to ignore the evidence explicitly given because you don't like it is your problem, not mine. Literally all you had was "I don't accept this." That's assertion, and no more. Come back when you've learned relativity, then maybe you can explain your problem: until then, you're wasting my time as ever.

There is also a section on evidence. You can't simply pretend it's not relevant here.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #76 on: December 08, 2015, 10:18:31 PM »
What you said was EXPLICITLY addressed in the model, and anyone who actually read it would see it. Do you think you wouldn't get called out on lies?
I will call you out on bullshit if that's all you provide. 
I am not taking everything on word. And since you are introducing a new model, you are obligate to explain it in details to anyone interested. No, your model did not explained anything that I asked. The same follows for your answers to my questions.

All you did was demand that I repeat what was already clearly explained in the model, and I'm sick of REers like you who think it's somehow funny to demand I waste my time.
Pro tip: make a FAQ of your model and link it in your signature. Problem solves itself - you can send anyone to your signature instead of "being sick" and "wasting time" on answering the same questions.


*

sircool

  • 426
  • flat, round, whatever throats your goat
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #77 on: December 09, 2015, 12:02:42 AM »
Quote
But do you seriously think that this non aerodynamic object(ISS) could fly in our atmosphere?
Certainly. Aerodynamicism aids efficiency, it's not required.


Interesting, and how do you suppose solar panels can withold 27600km/h winds?
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #78 on: December 09, 2015, 01:09:30 AM »
I have provided a simple equation that will tell you if the ISS is in space or not:
But, I'll still give you the original equation :

D(ISS Orbit)=2H+8000miles

O(ISS Orbit)=[pi](2H+8000)miles

D(Earth)= 8000miles

H(ISS height over earth)=H

t(Time spent in 20° of your field of view straight overhead)  (variable)  (in seconds)

T(Time for ISS to make one full lap in orbit)=5400s

S(Length ISS travel along 20° of your field of view straight overhead)=2*H*tan(10°)miles  (Using trigonometry, since this is only an approxmation and the arc is pretty small)=0.3527Hmiles  (roughly)

t/T=S/D(ISS Orbit) -> ts/5400s=0.3527Hmiles/[pi](2H+8000)miles  (equability)

t/5400=0.3527H/[pi](2H+8000)

t=0.3527H*5400/[pi](2H+8000)=1904.3H/[pi](2H+8000)

t[pi](2H+8000)=1904.3H

t[pi]2H+t[pi]8000=1904.3H

1904.3H-t[pi]2H=t[pi]8000

H(1904.3-2t[pi])=t[pi]8000

H=t[pi]8000/(1904.3-2t[pi])

Actually, it seems like something went wrong when I posted the equation in the earlier post, as it seems to be missing a number 2. I will edit that one quickly. This equation will only give you an approximation, as you can only approximate 20° of your FOV, approximate the time it travels and because it is doesn't take the curvature into account. But it is close enough to calculate if it is in space or not.

EDIT:

Almost forgot:

D=Diameter

O=Circumference

H=Height

S=Straight

t and T=Time

No need to debate it.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2015, 01:11:51 AM by Master_Evar »
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #79 on: December 09, 2015, 06:01:07 AM »
Quote
I am not taking everything on word. And since you are introducing a new model, you are obligate to explain it in details to anyone interested. No, your model did not explained anything that I asked. The same follows for your answers to my questions.
I HAVE explained it moron, I'm not going to waste time repeating myself to someone too lazy to click a link. You want to learn it, read it. Otherwise why shoudl I bother with you?
You're not interested. You've been called out on your lies, deal with it.

Quote
Pro tip: make a FAQ of your model and link it in your signature.
The link to the model is there you pathetic penguin, what the fuck is wrong with you?!

Quote
Interesting, and how do you suppose solar panels can withold 27600km/h winds?
What are you on about now?

Quote
I have provided a simple equation that will tell you if the ISS is in space or not:
Which relies upon presupposing the RE model, so completely irrelevant.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #80 on: December 09, 2015, 08:01:51 AM »
Quote
I have provided a simple equation that will tell you if the ISS is in space or not:
Which relies upon presupposing the RE model, so completely irrelevant.
Good point! BUT!:
Quote
Quote from: FEScientist on September 16, 2015, 12:51:54 PM
Quote
Quote from: Master Evar
Quote
Orbits are elliptical, if they are stable without changing parent body.

True, but we aren't dealing with an orbit in the strictest sense, if we are on a FE with no space travel.

Quote
Quote
Where did you get 200 from in d=200sin(10°). Don't you mean 100? In which case d would be 17.36 miles.

Twice 100: using 100sin(10) would give you one triangle, but for the total distance covered by the 20 degrees, you need to double it to include the other.

Quote
Quote
Where did you get 187540 from? 187540 what?

Miles: it's the product of 5400 (seconds) and d (miles per second).

Thanks for your correction, I see what you mean, I was using the cliche use of a circle. I tried to make mine more generally useful as a 20 degree arc crossing directly over the observer at halfway would be much trickier to achieve. Correcting, I think we'll find:

O = 190433 miles/t

Which should make falsifying the FE model with no space travel possible, depending on what t is.
This looks like a good tool for determining when it'll be visible:
http://iss.astroviewer.net/
Open invitation to readers, I guess. I'll wait to see when it's an accessible time for me.

Yup, that seems right. I'd change sine for tan though, as I explained earlier.

So O=5400*2H*tan(10°)/t => O=1904.3H/t

But this equation does require you to know two of the variables.

My equation for ISS height on a flat earth:

ts/5400s=2H*tan(10°)miles/39000miles     (12400miles*[pi]=39000miles, roughly)

39000t/5400=2H*tan(10°)

39000t/1904.3=H

H=39000t/1904.3

If we compare them:

Round earth: H=25133t/(1904.3-[tau]*t)

Flat earth: H=38956t/1904.3


The flat earth one will give a greater H when t is low, I'll calculate the t:

25133t/(1904.3-[tau]*t)=38956t/1904.3

38956t*(1904.3-[tau]*t)=25133t*1904.3

47860772t=74183911t-244768t^2

47860772=74183911-244768t

244768t=74183911-47860772=26323139

t=26323139/244768=107.5

So as long as t is smaller than 107.5 the ISS will be higher up on a flat earth than on a round earth.
At t=107.5, H=2,200 miles.

tl;dr:
If the earth was flat, the ISS would actually be higher up than we are told. The greater the difference between ISS orbit on a flat earth and the circumference of a round earth, the higher it is on a flat earth.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #81 on: December 09, 2015, 10:12:43 AM »
Quote
If the earth was flat, the ISS would actually be higher up than we are told. The greater the difference between ISS orbit on a flat earth and the circumference of a round earth, the higher it is on a flat earth.

Suspicious that you don't link to sources. I'd note that you don't seem to check what t is, you calculate it presumably by the same measurements that supposed a RE.
There's no way to say anything more when the entire basis is omitted. How is distance determined?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

sircool

  • 426
  • flat, round, whatever throats your goat
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #82 on: December 09, 2015, 10:46:55 AM »
Quote
If the earth was flat, the ISS would actually be higher up than we are told. The greater the difference between ISS orbit on a flat earth and the circumference of a round earth, the higher it is on a flat earth.

Suspicious that you don't link to sources. I'd note that you don't seem to check what t is, you calculate it presumably by the same measurements that supposed a RE.
There's no way to say anything more when the entire basis is omitted. How is distance determined?

Here's a source for yah!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #83 on: December 09, 2015, 11:27:56 AM »
Quote
If the earth was flat, the ISS would actually be higher up than we are told. The greater the difference between ISS orbit on a flat earth and the circumference of a round earth, the higher it is on a flat earth.

Suspicious that you don't link to sources. I'd note that you don't seem to check what t is, you calculate it presumably by the same measurements that supposed a RE.
There's no way to say anything more when the entire basis is omitted. How is distance determined?

Here's a source for yah!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Get a life.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #84 on: December 09, 2015, 12:05:31 PM »
Quote
If the earth was flat, the ISS would actually be higher up than we are told. The greater the difference between ISS orbit on a flat earth and the circumference of a round earth, the higher it is on a flat earth.

Suspicious that you don't link to sources. I'd note that you don't seem to check what t is, you calculate it presumably by the same measurements that supposed a RE.
There's no way to say anything more when the entire basis is omitted. How is distance determined?

Here's a source for yah!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Get a life.

I find it hilarious that you resort to blatant insults when someone destroys your theory. It's quite funny actually.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

*

sircool

  • 426
  • flat, round, whatever throats your goat
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #85 on: December 09, 2015, 12:40:00 PM »
Quote
If the earth was flat, the ISS would actually be higher up than we are told. The greater the difference between ISS orbit on a flat earth and the circumference of a round earth, the higher it is on a flat earth.

Suspicious that you don't link to sources. I'd note that you don't seem to check what t is, you calculate it presumably by the same measurements that supposed a RE.
There's no way to say anything more when the entire basis is omitted. How is distance determined?

Here's a source for yah!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Get a life.

So often you confuse me with your arguments mr JRoweSkeptic, can I ask if you are a religious person?
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #86 on: December 09, 2015, 01:39:08 PM »
Quote
I find it hilarious that you resort to blatant insults when someone destroys your theory. It's quite funny actually.
He posted a link to an irrelevant wikipedia page with no content or argument or explanation whatsoever. If you think that's destroying a theory, that... explains quite a bit actually.
I will not waste time on pathetic trolls. If you think he deserves any respect, you can fuck off too. I will have civil discussion with people who actually discuss, as I have, but I will call a troll a troll and a fuckwit a fuckwit.

Quote
So often you confuse me with your arguments mr JRoweSkeptic, can I ask if you are a religious person?
No. I believe in logic, and actual discussion. You apparently believe in ignorance, whining, trolling, spamming, and a complete lack of any honest discussion. WHy do you persist in wasting everybody's time?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #87 on: December 09, 2015, 10:07:55 PM »
Quote
If the earth was flat, the ISS would actually be higher up than we are told. The greater the difference between ISS orbit on a flat earth and the circumference of a round earth, the higher it is on a flat earth.

Suspicious that you don't link to sources. I'd note that you don't seem to check what t is, you calculate it presumably by the same measurements that supposed a RE.
There's no way to say anything more when the entire basis is omitted. How is distance determined?
I did the math myself. If you need sources that math works, then you are not suited to debate the shape of the earth.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #88 on: December 10, 2015, 08:00:48 AM »


Is that in space?

Well, in some sence yes!

I did not reject it because I did not like it, the story was fine. Your hypothesis about space travel on the other hand is very easy to reject, I have done so many times my self.

Again, the non-existence space travel is a conclusion. You reject it with no evidence beyond the assertion the numerous FE responses are wrong: that is not scientific.

That is your opinion, I reject it with alot of evidence, my favourite is this


But do you seriously think that this non aerodynamic object(ISS) could fly in our atmosphere?
We have 3 measurements:
  • The size of the Sun
  • The size of the plane
  • The size of ISS
Based on these, can we determine the altitude of ISS +/-?
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Dual Earth Theory
« Reply #89 on: December 10, 2015, 08:07:11 AM »


Is that in space?

Well, in some sence yes!

I did not reject it because I did not like it, the story was fine. Your hypothesis about space travel on the other hand is very easy to reject, I have done so many times my self.

Again, the non-existence space travel is a conclusion. You reject it with no evidence beyond the assertion the numerous FE responses are wrong: that is not scientific.

That is your opinion, I reject it with alot of evidence, my favourite is this


But do you seriously think that this non aerodynamic object(ISS) could fly in our atmosphere?
We have 3 measurements:
  • The size of the Sun
  • The size of the plane
  • The size of ISS
Based on these, can we determine the altitude of ISS +/-?

That example is the only thing I like about math.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.