Has he been hard done by? Let's examine his evidence.

Quote

Just because you give it the title "evidence" doesn't magically make that there is evidence.

If you disagree with the evidence I used, you have a chance to put your money where your mouth is:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70748.0
If you can't meet that challenge, my definition and so the evidence presented holds. Care to make a substantive post for once?

It's very strange how you keep repeating the fact that you have included evidence, when there is none actually presented. Its a bit like you calling it a theory when it doesn't come anywhere close by a long long way.....Yet you continue to claim otherwise when all the evidence is clearly against you.

You try and use science when it suits you then discard it when the going gets difficult.
You totally disregard evidence that refutes your fanciful claims while evading questions that I suspect are too difficult for you to answer. I don't think you have answered a single question during this thread, instead you attempt to turn the tables in an attempt to deflect any questions asked, constantly asking people to click on your link to your incoherent ramblings.

Sun in the centre of the earth! I don't think I've ever heard anything so ridiculous since......magnetic imps!

Hard done by.....I don't think so!

He states:-

The stars, sun, moon and other planets are all the same kind of entity: rock and metal.

Basic observations have told us that planets can either be rocky, like the Earth , Mars or Venus or gas giants such as Jupiter or Saturn. The Sun is composed of mostly hydrogen and helium like all main sequence stars.

The phases of the moon are caused by the moon’s rotation, dull non-lit sides rotating into view. When an entirely metal face is pointed at the earth, this is a full moon: a rock face provides a new moon.

Walk out on any night and look up....that's all that is needed to disprove this It  takes approximately 27 days for the moon to rotate once on its axis. As a result, the moon does not seem to be spinning but appears to observers from Earth to be keeping almost perfectly still. Scientists call this sychronous rotation and that's why we see the same face all the time.

I haven’t gone through every aspect of the world as that could take ages. I think I’ve described the major points, however, and hopefully I have shown you that the dual earth model is both respectable and accurate. It matches observations.

He states the sun is in the centre of the earth and is made of metal and stone.
He states the moon rotates in such a way to present us with faces made of differing materials,again metal and stone.
He then states that his ideas matches observations!

He has been asked on numerous occasions to present evidence to which he always replies " go read my stuff"..... but his stuff contains no evidence......bit like Groundhog Day without the laughs.

I disagree that there is evidence provided.

I'll await any time you feel like giving justification. How long has it been?

It's very strange how you keep repeating the fact that you have included evidence, when there is none actually presented. Its a bit like you calling it a theory when it doesn't come anywhere close by a long long way.....Yet you continue to claim otherwise when all the evidence is clearly against you.

As you are still refusing to justify this claim, I must assume you cannot. As ever, when you can explain your issues with the evidence, let me know.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70748.0

You totally disregard evidence that refutes your fanciful claims while evading questions that I suspect are too difficult for you to answer. I don't think you have answered a single question during this thread, instead you attempt to turn the tables in an attempt to deflect any questions asked, constantly asking people to click on your link to your incoherent ramblings.

You mean, linking to the answers?
here's the thing: you are starting at the end, rather than the beginning. You are expecting me to explain the entire model from the ground up at your whim. I am not going to do that when I have already done so. It's a waste of time, and frankly if you're too lazy to click a link I don't see why I should put in any more effort than you. You pluck sentences out of context, whine that they don't work alone when they're not meant to, and refuse every time you are asked to look at the context (which is several pages worth of material you apparently want me to repeat simply because you demand it, when you refuse to answer a basic question of mine).
I'm not surprised it's incoherent to you. What do you expect, starting at the end?

You know what really is ridiculous? You pretending you were even considering a 'fair hearing.'

Basic observations have told us

All the observations you gave have previously been refuted. I'll await any response.

As a result, the moon does not seem to be spinning but appears to observers from Earth to be keeping almost perfectly still.

Exactly as it would also appear under the DE model.

but his stuff contains no evidence..

You have repeatedly been asked to justify this claim. You consistently refuse to do so. I am still waiting for:

1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.

If you cannot supply this, my evidence holds. Why do you keep evading this question?

I hit post too soon. To add:

Quote

You will notice the features (impact craters, light/shadowed areas) vary only slightly due to libration (a consequence of the non-circular orbit that gives us glimpses of the dark side during various parts of the moon's orbit).

I have, but there is only one face of the moon that we can]/i] see. Of course we'd see only the same few features, they're on the only part of the moon that emits light.

If you agree there is only one face of the moon that we can see, then why have you stated the following?

Quote from JRoweSkeptic:
 "The phases of the moon are caused by the moon’s rotation, dull non-lit sides rotating into view. When an entirely metal face is pointed at the earth, this is a full moon: a rock face provides a new moon. "

These seem incongruent, yet I'm sure you have a fascinating explanation.

If you agree there is only one face of the moon that we can see, then why have you stated the following?

Look at a crescent moon. You see the lit part, you do not see the dulled. Where is the incongruity in that? You only see the part of the moon that emits light.

Quote

If you agree there is only one face of the moon that we can see, then why have you stated the following?

Look at a crescent moon. You see the lit part, you do not see the dulled. Where is the incongruity in that? You only see the part of the moon that emits light.

This quote suggests the face of the moon towards the earth does not rotate.

"I have, but there is only one face of the moon that we can]/i] see. Of course we'd see only the same few features, they're on the only part of the moon that emits light."

This quote suggest the face of the moon towards the earth does rotate.

"The phases of the moon are caused by the moon’s rotation, dull non-lit sides rotating into view. When an entirely metal face is pointed at the earth, this is a full moon: a rock face provides a new moon. "

Incongruent.

This quote suggests the face of the moon towards the earth does not rotate.

No, it suggests there is only one side we are capable of seeing because it is the only one that emits light. I have explained what I was saying; if you found it unclear, it has now been clarified. Insisting that your misreading is somehow more accurate is no more than a transparent straw man.

Quote

This quote suggests the face of the moon towards the earth does not rotate.

No, it suggests there is only one side we are capable of seeing because it is the only one that emits light. I have explained what I was saying; if you found it unclear, it has now been clarified. Insisting that your misreading is somehow more accurate is no more than a transparent straw man.

Then it is clear you have misinterpreted the photographs of the moon's phases presented to you. You can clearly see the moon does not rotate its face to the earth. If the moon were emitting light and rotating, the features would rotate as well. As is clear in the photos (and as is clear if you observe the moon yourself on a run of clear nights), the moon does not rotate it's face relative to the earth. This disproves your theory that the moon is emitting rather than reflecting light.

Then it is clear you have misinterpreted the photographs of the moon's phases presented to you. You can clearly see the moon does not rotate its face to the earth. If the moon were emitting light and rotating, the features would rotate as well. As is clear in the photos (and as is clear if you observe the moon yourself on a run of clear nights), the moon does not rotate it's face relative to the earth. This disproves your theory that the moon is emitting rather than reflecting light.

As brought up before, that is not the case. There is only one face we are capable of seeing, and so we will only ever see those features. Even as that face rotates out of view, those are still the only features we will be capable of seeing.



Look at it. Leave RET behind for a moment, and think about what you would expect to see when viewing that central full moon from side-on. You'd primarily just see the details of the half/less closer to you. Bingo.

Quote

Then it is clear you have misinterpreted the photographs of the moon's phases presented to you. You can clearly see the moon does not rotate its face to the earth. If the moon were emitting light and rotating, the features would rotate as well. As is clear in the photos (and as is clear if you observe the moon yourself on a run of clear nights), the moon does not rotate it's face relative to the earth. This disproves your theory that the moon is emitting rather than reflecting light.

As brought up before, that is not the case. There is only one face we are capable of seeing, and so we will only ever see those features. Even as that face rotates out of view, those are still the only features we will be capable of seeing.



Look at it. Leave RET behind for a moment, and think about what you would expect to see when viewing that central full moon from side-on. You'd primarily just see the details of the half/less closer to you. Bingo.

I'm leaving RET behind. I'm considering the central full moon from a position floating in space. I'm moving to the right side-on. I expect to the see the features of the right half of the full moon as I originally saw them now rotated to left side of the moon, and the right side of the moon in darkness. That is, although I am looking at half of the same features, they have shifted (rotated). This is not what we observe, it is not what is represented in the photos, and is why I fall back on the RE model and a tidally locked moon that is reflecting the sun's light. It works.

Just look at the photos. If the lit face of a supposedly light emitting moon rotates out of view, the features will rotate with it. I cannot comprehend how you cannot comprehend this.

Couldn't help myself. I had a little peak at your DET description on your forum. This.

"Common belief is that the same face of the moon faces us at all times. this is an optical illusion: any notable features will still be visible on the tilted moon, so we will certainly observe some similarities. The moon is too far away for us to say anything more."

No, no and no. It's not an optical illusion. Man has been looking at moon since his inception. We can see the features clearly with the naked eye, and in stunning detail with a telescope. Stunning detail. There are not just "some similarities". The moon is clearly tidally locked, and is clearly reflecting the sun's rays. 

Look at the beauty of our celestial satellite in all its glory. Ain't science grand!


As an aside, note on the lit side of the moon shadows forming behind raised edges of craters. If the light source were coming from the moon itself, how would this happen? It couldn't. The light is from the sun.

Quote

I disagree that there is evidence provided.

I'll await any time you feel like giving justification. How long has it been?

Quote

It's very strange how you keep repeating the fact that you have included evidence, when there is none actually presented. Its a bit like you calling it a theory when it doesn't come anywhere close by a long long way.....Yet you continue to claim otherwise when all the evidence is clearly against you.

As you are still refusing to justify this claim, I must assume you cannot. As ever, when you can explain your issues with the evidence, let me know.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70748.0

Quote

You totally disregard evidence that refutes your fanciful claims while evading questions that I suspect are too difficult for you to answer. I don't think you have answered a single question during this thread, instead you attempt to turn the tables in an attempt to deflect any questions asked, constantly asking people to click on your link to your incoherent ramblings.

You mean, linking to the answers?
here's the thing: you are starting at the end, rather than the beginning. You are expecting me to explain the entire model from the ground up at your whim. I am not going to do that when I have already done so. It's a waste of time, and frankly if you're too lazy to click a link I don't see why I should put in any more effort than you. You pluck sentences out of context, whine that they don't work alone when they're not meant to, and refuse every time you are asked to look at the context (which is several pages worth of material you apparently want me to repeat simply because you demand it, when you refuse to answer a basic question of mine).
I'm not surprised it's incoherent to you. What do you expect, starting at the end?

You know what really is ridiculous? You pretending you were even considering a 'fair hearing.'

Quote

Basic observations have told us

All the observations you gave have previously been refuted. I'll await any response.

Quote

As a result, the moon does not seem to be spinning but appears to observers from Earth to be keeping almost perfectly still.

Exactly as it would also appear under the DE model.

Quote

but his stuff contains no evidence..

You have repeatedly been asked to justify this claim. You consistently refuse to do so. I am still waiting for:

1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.

If you cannot supply this, my evidence holds. Why do you keep evading this question?

You are indeed a broken record.
You keep maintaining you have evidence for your claims where none exist. When asked to produce it you direct people to click on your link. They read it find no evidence and then ask you "where's the evidence"..... you complain they haven't understood it and direct them to the link......

Your challenge for the day....
You could solve this quite easily by producing just one scrap of evidence for just one of your claims. How about the one where you claim the sun is made of metal and stone....and is located at the centre of the earth. Let's forget about your magnetic imps as they appear to upset you.

Quote

I disagree that there is evidence provided.

I'll await any time you feel like giving justification. How long has it been?

Just present one piece of evidence. Can't be that hard, right?

No, no and no. It's not an optical illusion. Man has been looking at moon since his inception. We can see the features clearly with the naked eye, and in stunning detail with a telescope. Stunning detail. There are not just "some similarities". The moon is clearly tidally locked, and is clearly reflecting the sun's rays. 

I understand you believe this. Stating what you believe achieves nothing. Justify it, or don't say anything.

As an aside, note on the lit side of the moon shadows forming behind raised edges of craters. If the light source were coming from the moon itself, how would this happen? It couldn't. The light is from the sun.

They're just imperfections; non-lit rocks on the lit surface.

Just present one piece of evidence. Can't be that hard, right?

Still waiting for you to say what's wrong with what's presented. Remember?
Provide:

1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.

I know you love evading it, so I am no longer responding to any of your questions until you either provide one of these two things, or concede you cannot. Then you can shut up about the evidence.

Quote

Just present one piece of evidence. Can't be that hard, right?

Still waiting for you to say what's wrong with what's presented. Remember?

There is nothing provided.

If you think there is: post it here.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70748.0
You know full well there is an entire section devoted to the evidence. I'm not pasting it all, that's already been done in this very thread. So put up or shut up. Where is the problem with it?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70748.0
You know full well there is an entire section devoted to the evidence. I'm not pasting it all, that's already been done in this very thread. So put up or shut up. Where is the problem with it?

Post one, only ONE piece of evidence here that supports your model. Can't be that hard, can it?

I claim you can't, by posting that one piece of evidence here you would proof me wrong. Easy, no?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70748.0
You know full well there is an entire section devoted to the evidence. I'm not pasting it all, that's already been done in this very thread. So put up or shut up. Where is the problem with it?

Click the link, .........refuses to answer any direct questions. JRowe thinks any question that could ever be asked about his flimsy conjecture is covered by his on line document.

I asked him straight questions regarding his description in relation to nature of the Sun in his 'document' ........ he has refused to answer them! What can you do?

Quote

No, no and no. It's not an optical illusion. Man has been looking at moon since his inception. We can see the features clearly with the naked eye, and in stunning detail with a telescope. Stunning detail. There are not just "some similarities". The moon is clearly tidally locked, and is clearly reflecting the sun's rays. 

I understand you believe this. Stating what you believe achieves nothing. Justify it, or don't say anything.

Quote

As an aside, note on the lit side of the moon shadows forming behind raised edges of craters. If the light source were coming from the moon itself, how would this happen? It couldn't. The light is from the sun.

They're just imperfections; non-lit rocks on the lit surface.

This is not my belief. It is a fact based on what anyone can observe of the moon's surface with or without a telescope. The photo you posted is excellent evidence. A belief that requires justification is something like your dual earth theory for example. No evidence, no equations to describe it. Just a raft of assumptions, magic and fairy dust.
 
Non-lit rocks on the lit surface? That move to always face away from the sun? Oh, that's my morning giggles. You're either invoking Poe's law or are clinically brain dead. This has become tiresome.

They're just imperfections; non-lit rocks on the lit surface.

I understand you believe this. Stating what you believe achieves nothing. Justify it, or don't say anything.

Also, shadows that just happen to face away from the angle of incident light? That also change based on the angle of incident light? Erm... ok then!

Lonegranger, once more:
Provide:

1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.

I know you love evading it, so I am no longer responding to any of your questions until you either provide one of these two things, or concede you cannot. Then you can shut up about the evidence.

Post one, only ONE piece of evidence here that supports your model. Can't be that hard, can it?

I've linked you to it. Why don't you read it? if you're too lazy to click a link I don't see the point in wasting time typing anything more to you.

No evidence, no equations to describe it. Just a raft of assumptions, magic and fairy dust.
 
Non-lit rocks on the lit surface? That move to always face away from the sun? Oh, that's my morning giggles. You're either invoking Poe's law or are clinically brain dead. This has become tiresome.

Again, I know what you believe, I'm waiting for the evidence. You seem to think the fact you believe in RET and find FET absurd from the get-go is some form of reasoning. It isn't. "Ha ha, that's different to my model and because I don't know the explanation there must not be one," is not even approaching logic. There's plenty of evidence, as you have to know by this stage (still waiting for anyone to explain their issues with it), zero magic, just one well-defined law and common-sense consequences.
Nothing's moving to face away from the Sun, that's something you added because you'd rather shoehorn in RET concepts where they're not welcome. The moon is composed of rock and metal, it isn't lit as brightly as other entities in the sky so the imperfections are more visible, nothing special going on. Lose the insults and provide some goddamn justification for your assertions of RET.

understand you believe this. Stating what you believe achieves nothing. Justify it, or don't say anything.

Also, shadows that just happen to face away from the angle of incident light? That also change based on the angle of incident light?

Everyone knows where to find my evidence.
What incident light? The moon is self-illuminating.

Lonegranger, once more:
Provide:

1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.

I know you love evading it, so I am no longer responding to any of your questions until you either provide one of these two things, or concede you cannot. Then you can shut up about the evidence.

Quote

Post one, only ONE piece of evidence here that supports your model. Can't be that hard, can it?

I've linked you to it. Why don't you read it? if you're too lazy to click a link I don't see the point in wasting time typing anything more to you.

Quote

No evidence, no equations to describe it. Just a raft of assumptions, magic and fairy dust.
 
Non-lit rocks on the lit surface? That move to always face away from the sun? Oh, that's my morning giggles. You're either invoking Poe's law or are clinically brain dead. This has become tiresome.

Again, I know what you believe, I'm waiting for the evidence. You seem to think the fact you believe in RET and find FET absurd from the get-go is some form of reasoning. It isn't. "Ha ha, that's different to my model and because I don't know the explanation there must not be one," is not even approaching logic. There's plenty of evidence, as you have to know by this stage (still waiting for anyone to explain their issues with it), zero magic, just one well-defined law and common-sense consequences.
Nothing's moving to face away from the Sun, that's something you added because you'd rather shoehorn in RET concepts where they're not welcome. The moon is composed of rock and metal, it isn't lit as brightly as other entities in the sky so the imperfections are more visible, nothing special going on. Lose the insults and provide some goddamn justification for your assertions of RET.

Quote

understand you believe this. Stating what you believe achieves nothing. Justify it, or don't say anything.

Also, shadows that just happen to face away from the angle of incident light? That also change based on the angle of incident light?

Everyone knows where to find my evidence.
What incident light? The moon is self-illuminating.

Oh give it a break....you've been thinking up a smart reply for the last 48 hours and this is the best you can come up with....do me a favour!

You know full well that your 'conjecture' totally dismisses all the known laws of just about everything..... so claiming a half arsed two page document somehow explains the whole of creation and the cosmos doesn't even rate as a bad joke.

Then you have the total audacity to ask me questions when the topic under discussion was your pathetic 'conjecture' that you pompously referred to as a theory! Talk about having an over inflated opinion of oneself.

I'm still waiting, as are others for you to provide some answers......

I've linked you to it. Why don't you read it? if you're too lazy to click a link I don't see the point in wasting time typing anything more to you.

There is no evidence in your link. Just blablabla.

I'm still waiting, as are others for you to provide some answers......

Provide:

1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.

I know you love evading it, so I am no longer responding to any of your questions until you either provide one of these two things, or concede you cannot. Then you can shut up about the evidence.

There is no evidence in your link. Just blablabla.

When you can explain what is wrong with the evidence section, I'll listen. What do you think it achieves to just lie like that? Anyone that clicks the link will see the evidence.

There is no evidence there.
If you think there is, post one piece of evidence here.

Quote

I'm still waiting, as are others for you to provide some answers......

Provide:

1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.

I know you love evading it, so I am no longer responding to any of your questions until you either provide one of these two things, or concede you cannot. Then you can shut up about the evidence.

Quote

There is no evidence in your link. Just blablabla.

When you can explain what is wrong with the evidence section, I'll listen. What do you think it achieves to just lie like that? Anyone that clicks the link will see the evidence.

Ok line in the sand....here are some direct questions for you regarding your flat science conjecture that goes right to its heart that are not explained within its text. You state the following....

The stars, sun, moon and other planets are all the same kind of entity: rock and metal. They resemble spotlights: a metal core with dull rock on the outside. The metal is heated white-hot by friction, though all are heated to different degrees depending on locations. Some are impure, also, giving some texture.

The sun is inside the earth: it is the source of geothermal energy, and our magnetic field (recalling that it is made of metal). Its light and much of its heat is carried by aether, however: clearly such things move through space. This is what we see in the sky, on each side of the world: the image of the same sun.


You state the sun is inside the earth and it is heated by friction causing it to glow white hot!

So let's clarify a few things. Friction is the force resisting the relative motion of solid surfaces, fluid layers, and material elements sliding against each other. While there are several types of friction, and you did not specify which type, I am assuming you were referring to Kinetic friction, also known as dynamic friction or sliding friction, occurs when two objects are moving relative to each other and rub together, but perhaps you could clarify this point.

My first question is what is the primary source of energy causing the movement from which the friction forces are derived? as you make no mention of this. What is the source of this energy and how has it been able to power the sun for over 4.5 billion years.

As the sun has been in existance for over 4.5 billion years why has it not worn itself away?

How do you account for sun spots that have been known about for hundreds of years?

How can you explain coronal mass ejections, if the sun is solid and inside the earth how could this take place?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection

These question which I doubt you will be able to answer show just what a proposterous piece of nonsense your attempt at a conjecture really is.

The duel earth theory has been raked over the coals ever since its inception. every time someone asks a question, it divulge into "READ THE THEORY, YOU MORON!!!!!!."