Reliable model for the FET

  • 26 Replies
  • 4330 Views
Reliable model for the FET
« on: June 18, 2016, 06:49:58 AM »
Dear FEers (and any Round Earthers playing Devil's Advocate),

Can you please show me a reliable model of the FE? I have seen several descriptions and models, with disagreements between the various concepts- some assume a disk which has Antarctica around the edge, some without. I have found them to be very poor at holding up to scrutiny. I do not understand how they explain plate tectonics, a lunar cycle, or a day and night cycle. More so, I have not seen any evidence for the thickness of this flat Earth, nor have I seen any evidence for what is the other side.

Enlighten Me.

MR PIG




*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2016, 07:50:37 PM »
Did you ask this knowing that one doesn't exist?
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2016, 11:45:55 PM »
I did attempt to discuss plate tectonics.

It doesn't seem to have gained much interest unfortunately. I think people are more interested in the sky, space etc. (both FE's and RE's).

Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2016, 10:06:55 PM »
i think not having an even close to working model is kind of a huge problem for the validity of this theory

Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2016, 12:53:17 AM »
i think not having an even close to working model is kind of a huge problem for the validity of this theory

I would like to see more theories tied to one another, this is where a lot more thinking is required.

For example, how does a dome effect wind patterns and can it be explained to fit within the wind patterns we see today? (after all, you would expect deflection off a dome).




Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2016, 01:17:36 AM »
Did you ask this knowing that one doesn't exist?

No, I've just seen none that work, and I wonder how the FE is justified in a way that brings their arguments together.

?

Kami

  • 1160
Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2016, 01:19:15 AM »
The problem with flat earth is that almost everyone believes in another model and therefore a unified theory is hard to achieve. Also, apart from john davis, no flat earther seems to be interested in researching and validating the model.

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2016, 02:03:32 AM »
The idea about FE will not advance.  Simply because beyond claiming it is flat there is a very limited number of people with what I assume are very limited resources actually trying to find evidence and get a working model. 

Evidenced by they can not do stuff like this that amateurs have done just for fun:

https://amateurgeophysics.wordpress.com/earth-orbiting-satellites/the-doppler-shift-of-satellite-radio-beacons/







What was in the last video should be doable for The Flat Earth Society. Sounding rockets are very doable with a limited understanding, they are just basically just like large toy rockets. Just need to make sure it is balanced.

What I find hard to understand is people do stuff like the above for fun.  Yet, people trying to prove there is a giant conspiracy do not attempt anything like it.  They stick to making videos of boats not beyond the horizon and zooming in on them, stating they are seeing something that they should not be able to using the wrong calculations, and doing laser experiments that can not be replicated.

Out of the above a sounding rocket IMHO would give the best answer to the question if the world is flat.  US law states explicitly anyone can launch a rocket.  There is just some safety guidelines to follow and you need to ensure you will not hit anything already up there.  I am not sure about anywhere else in the world.

« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 02:05:13 AM by Woody »

Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #8 on: June 26, 2016, 03:42:41 AM »
I think launching a rocket like that would be fairly technical....you would have to have a pretty good grasp on atmospheric wind directions while being able to determine approximate landing position. But it would be cool if they did launch a rocket!

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2016, 03:48:03 AM »
I think launching a rocket like that would be fairly technical....you would have to have a pretty good grasp on atmospheric wind directions while being able to determine approximate landing position. But it would be cool if they did launch a rocket!

Relatively speaking it is rather simple to build a sounding rocket.  Think about model rockets. It becomes more difficult when you are trying to achieve orbit.  Launching something straight up is rather easy if someone has the desire, will and resources.

The main problem is retrieving the data. You need to transmit the data back or recover the rocket.  Recovering the rocket means it needs to survive the fall back to Earth.  Depending on the altitude and velocity the rocket achieves the designer may have to find solutions for heating during it's trip back.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 03:55:58 AM by Woody »

*

jordannv2

  • 14
  • Defender of Round Earth.
Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #10 on: June 26, 2016, 06:06:18 AM »
Devil's Advocate
Enlighten Me.

MR PIG

Ironic how that's what they called people in the middle ages when you said the earth was flat, now it's the opposite.

I think one of us should leave home and get into a rocket into space and then speak to us whether the earth is flat or not.

This debate won't stop, nor has an end.

Devil's Advocate are actually people like you who believe the earth is flat and the edges are covered in ice.. huh? lol
California Institute of Technology Graduate.
NASA Student, Astronomist.

NASA doesn't need to lie to you about something you can't even explain completely.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #12 on: June 26, 2016, 10:15:44 AM »
http://theflatearthsociety.net/relativity.html

The problem is you are one of the few doing something.  The rest is just claiming it is flat and calling any evidence to the contrary lies and fake.

Tom Bishop has done some work.  The problem there is he is not credible.  Stating the wrong distance, saying the telescope was only 20" above the water in an area he that it would be at least 4-5 feet above the water.  His claims about his education is questionable.  I have seen him state he got his degree from Harvard and another time it was from a university in California. 

You are part of a group that is not willing to do much beyond saying they are right.

IMHO the reason for this is trying to do something like launch a sounding rocket or track satellites will end up proving them wrong.

Personally if I believed the earth was flat I would try the sounding rocket thing.  Believe it or not you could build a sounding rocket that can go higher than the ISS for under $15k.  I have seen some claims for around $5k.  My guess it depends on the payload, if they want to recover anything, and apogee they want to reach.

http://www.space-rockets.com/newbook.html

Everything someone needs to know to build and launch a sounding rocket successfully.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #13 on: June 26, 2016, 10:19:56 AM »
How is that a problem? There are only a few round earthers "doing something." Percentage wise, we are owning the roundies in original research. The roundies are just better at 'puzzle-solving' so don't like a change in the linga.

I do quite a bit of work for the flat earth and the society, thank you very much. I've been at this longer than most of them - its expected that I might be pushing the forefront of Zetetic thought. Likewise, not everybody is suited to "moving forward" and they are still grasping the basics of Dome theory, let alone Johnson or Shentons much more complete views. There are others here that do original work, even if I'm not sold on it. Sandokan comes to mind and Dionysus as well as Raa at times.

Not to mention that the new community seems determined to rip out each others throats and call everybody a shill, thus removing legitimacy from us all. They are young. Give them time.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 10:22:43 AM by John Davis »
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #14 on: June 26, 2016, 10:25:21 AM »
Cmon now Davis, don't pretend you own anyone in research. Want me to post the list of experiments done in the ISS again?
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #15 on: June 26, 2016, 10:28:35 AM »
What don't you understand about 'percentage wise'? How many globularists do you estimate there are? How many Flatists?
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #16 on: June 26, 2016, 10:39:13 AM »
Whatever happened to JRowe? He's the only FEer out there I've seen that even attempted to answer issues relating to, for example, why things are different in each hemisphere. Remarkably simple basis for a model too, as far as most FE models go. If you can track down his posts, it's one of the more interesting/better models (which unfortunately does mean it gets treated terribly in arguments, not many people are here for particularly detailed discussion).
Might be others, but very few write down their models in an accessible or complete fashion. Sandokhan tries, but the thread's so long and bloated by this stage it's incomprehensible. Davis at least seems to be working on that, though the links don't seem complete yet.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #17 on: June 26, 2016, 10:44:37 AM »
Whatever happened to JRowe? He's the only FEer out there I've seen that even attempted to answer issues relating to, for example, why things are different in each hemisphere.
My model explains this with 100% accuracy. If satellites are traveling straight lines, it should be clear why you see different stars in the South and equal travel times.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #18 on: June 26, 2016, 10:44:51 AM »
How is that a problem? There are only a few round earthers "doing something." Percentage wise, we are owning the roundies in original research. The roundies are just better at 'puzzle-solving' so don't like a change in the linga.

I do quite a bit of work for the flat earth and the society, thank you very much.

Well I agree you are doing quite a bit of work.  Never said you did not.  Just that others are not.  If you are right you are on to something really important.  The society should do some fund raising so research can move beyond people with cameras zooming in on a boat.

As for doing more original research:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/

There is plenty going on.  The problem is the shape of the Earth has been proven and so beyond refining measurements nothing is being done it that area.

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #19 on: June 26, 2016, 10:52:47 AM »
IMHO why different FE researchers have problems is the result of to begin studying and trying to create a model it requires to accept a very large and grand conspiracy.  With that comes distrust of others that question you.

If you want evidence just look at these forums.  If someone disagrees there is a good chance they will be called a shill.  I have even seen other FE's claim that The Flat Earth Society is a government operation to discredit them.

I was surprised to find that debate was allowed here.  I tried just asking questions other places and was banned, blocked or had comments deleted. 


*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #20 on: June 26, 2016, 10:55:31 AM »
What don't you understand about 'percentage wise'? How many globularists do you estimate there are? How many Flatists?
Doesn't change a thing, thanks to the Islamic and other religions' belief on a flat earth. How many ISIS scientists do you think there are?

Again, I appreciate your research (and would apreciate it much more if you actually presented all of it for peer review here, but that's your right I guess). Its simply dishonest to say that everyone that believes in the flat earth is somehow now a highly trained scientist.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #21 on: June 26, 2016, 12:24:30 PM »
Whatever happened to JRowe? He's the only FEer out there I've seen that even attempted to answer issues relating to, for example, why things are different in each hemisphere.
My model explains this with 100% accuracy. If satellites are traveling straight lines, it should be clear why you see different stars in the South and equal travel times.
That's only one of the issues: you also get things like the Coriolis force (verified every time, for example, weather forecasters successfully predict the future).
That's one of the major issues with FET: explaining why stars rotate about two points in the sky, why the Coriolis force moves in different directions etc. On most discs, there's no easy way to explain varying behaviour: every point would have the same basic properties.

As a side note, have you considered letting the users make majors to outline their models fully, or more fully? It's probably easier than disconnected links to, for example, just how Relativity connects to one model: it's unwieldy to go through all models in bits and pieces like that when there are countless models. (And as a side note, the 'back home' link was broken on the page you linked). Might be better to set up a table of contents for each model too.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2016, 03:54:57 PM »
Dear FEers (and any Round Earthers playing Devil's Advocate),

Can you please show me a reliable model of the FE?
Simple:  the earth is flat. 

I have seen several descriptions and models, with disagreements between the various concepts- some assume a disk which has Antarctica around the edge, some without.
There is more land on earth. 

I have found them to be very poor at holding up to scrutiny.
You can not go to Antarctica either. 

I do not understand how they explain plate tectonics,
The same as everybody else explains it. 

a lunar cycle, or a day and night cycle.
Irrelevent. 

More so, I have not seen any evidence for the thickness of this flat Earth, nor have I seen any evidence for what is the other side.
The same can be said about the merry-go-round delusion. 


Enlighten Me.

MR PIG
Ask the same questions of your merry-go-round delusion. 

*

Blue_Moon

  • 846
  • Defender of NASA
Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2016, 04:23:32 PM »
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2016, 09:47:41 PM »
What don't you understand about 'percentage wise'? How many globularists do you estimate there are? How many Flatists?
Doesn't change a thing, thanks to the Islamic and other religions' belief on a flat earth. How many ISIS scientists do you think there are?

Again, I appreciate your research (and would apreciate it much more if you actually presented all of it for peer review here, but that's your right I guess). Its simply dishonest to say that everyone that believes in the flat earth is somehow now a highly trained scientist.
I know that many Muslims might believe in a Flat Earth and probably more in the Geocentric Earth, this is by no means universal in the Islamic world. See: Flat Earth and the Qur'an. Here is a quote
Quote
Introduction
The fact that the earth is not flat has been known for thousands of years. The Ancient Greeks Pythagoras (570 - 495 BC), Aristotle (384 - 322 BC) and Hipparchus (190 - 120 BC) all knew this. The Indian astronomer and mathematician, Aryabhata (476 - 550 AD) knew this. And so did the early Christian scholars Anicius BoŽthius (480 - 524 AD), Bishop Isidore of Seville (560 - 636 AD), Bishop Rabanus Maurus (780 - 856 AD), the monk Bede (672 - 735 AD), Bishop Vergilius of Salzburg (700 - 784 AD) and Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274 AD). In fact, contrary to what we are often told, the sphericity of the earth was common knowledge among early medieval Europeans and the Holy Roman Empire from as early as 395 AD used an orb to represent the spherical Earth.
Nevertheless, there is much support for the Flat Earth in highly placed Muslims.
Al Burini is also worth looking into for "Globe research" during the Western "Dark Ages", see AL-BIRUNI: A MASTER OF Scholarship.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #25 on: June 27, 2016, 01:22:41 AM »
Whatever happened to JRowe? He's the only FEer out there I've seen that even attempted to answer issues relating to, for example, why things are different in each hemisphere.
My model explains this with 100% accuracy. If satellites are traveling straight lines, it should be clear why you see different stars in the South and equal travel times.
That's only one of the issues: you also get things like the Coriolis force (verified every time, for example, weather forecasters successfully predict the future).
That's one of the major issues with FET: explaining why stars rotate about two points in the sky, why the Coriolis force moves in different directions etc. On most discs, there's no easy way to explain varying behaviour: every point would have the same basic properties.

As a side note, have you considered letting the users make majors to outline their models fully, or more fully? It's probably easier than disconnected links to, for example, just how Relativity connects to one model: it's unwieldy to go through all models in bits and pieces like that when there are countless models. (And as a side note, the 'back home' link was broken on the page you linked). Might be better to set up a table of contents for each model too.
Yes, that would be nice. Part of what I'm doing with the new site is making sure the Infinite Model, the Dome, and the Relativistic model (as well as others) are represented. I want to make this a hub for information for those interested in research on our ideas. It would help stop threads like this.

To speak to the issue you mentioned, this is explained by realizing that the flat earth is in a rotating reference frame. This is how I answer it in my dialogue which likely won't make it into the book:
Quote
Interviewer: Why do Toilets flush opposite depending on which hemisphere you are in?

They donít. Iíve tested this myself, and welcome any free-thinking person to test it themselves as well. Even given a round earth the influence of bowl construction and environment play a far greater role than the Coriolis force could ever hope to play.

Interviewer: Ok then, what about Hurricanes rotating opposite in the Southern Hemisphere? And Foucault Pendulums?

Our path through space is not a straight one. We are not in a completely stable orbit around the sun. Additionally, our orbit is in a rotating reference frame. Like when one accelerates on a merry-go-round, we can see the effects of this slight acceleration through a Foucault pendulum as well as through study of Hurricane patterns.

It should be noted that most replications of a Foucault pendulum have their path guided by magnets. The reason is two fold. First, controlling the external influences (such as air) on the pendulum proves to be a very difficult task. Secondly, they are most commonly placed in museums where one would not wish to reset the experiment on a regular basis.

Interviewer: I suppose our rotating reference frame also explains loss of sailing time when travelling westward?

Actually, this makes no sense given a round or a flat earth. Recall the famous thought experiment concerning the Tower of Pisa. We learned there that if we drop a ball it carries with it the inertia of our rotating frame. Likewise, our boat carries with it the inertia of this frame.

Interviewer:  What about the necessity of adjustments for the Rotation of Earth in Artillery and long range sniping?

Yes, our rotating frame of reference explains that as well. Since we are rotating we need to account for the apparent acceleration caused by assuming our frame of reference to be inertial. However its been questioned if this even occurs.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2016, 01:24:53 AM by John Davis »
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Reliable model for the FET
« Reply #26 on: June 27, 2016, 03:23:05 AM »
Yes, that would be nice. Part of what I'm doing with the new site is making sure the Infinite Model, the Dome, and the Relativistic model (as well as others) are represented. I want to make this a hub for information for those interested in research on our ideas. It would help stop threads like this.
An accessible table of contents may be easier: like that relativity link you posted earlier, I've no idea how we could find it without being directly linked to it, which does make it hard to stop threads like that.

Quote
To speak to the issue you mentioned, this is explained by realising that the flat earth is in a rotating reference frame. This is how I answer it in my dialogue which likely won't make it into the book:
I think the answer needs to be fleshed out more. That might be the mechanism that causes it, but the question is how it causes it? How would rotation in one direction create a force in different directions in each hemiplane?
(My guess would be that there's a 'default' direction of rotation, in the inner hemiplane, that slowly gets overcome the further out you go by the direction of rotation in the opposite direction. However, I don't want to put words in your mouth: and a potential issue with that is the fact you have space being altered in your model, to explain various distance discrepancies in the outer hemiplane, which I believe would prevent the rotational force from getting stronger the further out you go).
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!