Redshift in the FE model

star rockets in flight.... Afternoon delight!!!!!!

Quote from: Lonegranger on August 02, 2017, 05:06:10 AM

To have a proper debate you would need to seriously need to work out all the knock on implications that a flat earth would actually have for both how physics would work and what type of universe it would actually have to exist in.
You can't just transplant a flat earth into the universe as it currently thought to operate.
And that is the inescapable truth of why the earth could never be flat.

No, it's the inescapable truth of why you need to actually put a bit more effort into your arguments. You can't prove the Earth's never going to be flat until you disprove FET, which you can't do until you've actually looked at those models and consequences. The best you can say otherwise is that there just isn't enough supporting evidence. Which, yes, usually is plenty to not accept a model so go right ahead, but when you're going to make specific claims of impossibility, and debate topics like redshift, it's all meaningless until you can show it holds under FET.

Not working hard enough.....is that your new mantra, to be used when you can't think if anything sensible to say?
Again your not reading my posts.  I did say there may be a universe out there where planets are flat, but for that to happen the laws of physics would have to be very different and operate in a way other than we experience here.
As I previously  stated every observed celestial body over a certain size is persuaded to adopt a spherical form....the question I'm asking you is why?....why do the laws of this universe compel stars, planets, moons, planetoids etc to adopt a spherical shape......because they are conforming to the laws, they have no choice.
Now have a situation where the earth is flat....ergo...for that to happen the laws must therefore be different. It's is impossible for a body the mass of the earth not to adopt a spherical shape given the laws in operation in our universe. To deny that is to deny reality, but that is the hallmark of a FE. The proof is out there in the forms of all the planets and moons in the solar system. If flat earth types want to live on a flat planet they will have to find a universe that allows for such a planetary formation.....which given how planets form is very unlikely.
You say yourself that under FE thought stars would operate in a different way, if that were the case different physical laws must apply from our currently accepted ones.
When you think about the implications that the existance of a flat earth,heated by friction powered rock metal stars, would have for all our physical laws it really is quite staggering.

To summarise if the FE community want to live on a flat planet with rock metal friction heated stars that are embedded in aether whirlpools and moved by celestial gears while being illuminated at night by moon shrimp......then they need to find a different universe where it's physical laws allow for such things.

Unless you can prove red shift even can happen at all, like... on earth.

The problem being that the shape of the Earth impacts how you have to interpret observations from it, as I keep saying. The Sun is the perfect example of this; one change to the shape of the Earth and suddenly the Sun and stars are a whole lot closer. It's not a matter of shills, it's a matter of how the evidence for redshift simply does not make sense under FET.

We have observed 181 moons and planets in our solar system all of them are spherical...the question I ask you is why is this the case? Why has nature worked to force these bodies into the most economical form possible, a sphere? And why do you resist the inevitability of this argument.

Why would that have any impact on the Earth? I can also see plenty of stars in the sky, does that mean the Earth's a ball of plasma? This is another of thsoe stupid arguments. The reason spheres can form around a flat Earth is the same reason planets can form around a star; the universe is under no obligation to create just one object all the time, particularly when different forces are active.

Putting your red herring to one side. The question I suppose boils down, if you can follow this line of reasoning...I do wonder how you managed in your mathematics classes when it came to Gregor and his take on infinity when you find this simple concept difficult to grasp.....and when I think how you would handle Graham and his tricky little number, compared to infinity that is, I almost have to shudder.

Cantor's easy, and you might want to take a lesson from it. You need to be able to think in terms of different systems, and logic and logical implications alone, rather than relying on intuition alone for instincts developed only in one system. This is the problem most REers have with FEers; the world looks flat, so it must be, intuition says that much, logic says otherwise. Then when the shoe's on the other foot, you still rely on intuition over logic.

If you want poor logic, take a look at bringing up a separate argument that has no logical implication and no relevance to the thread, and relying on an argument that does not follow from FET.

This is where a mathematical background helps; I'm used to thinking in terms of different system, where the rules that hold in the one we're used to might not apply. I'm used to needing to check and double check even the most basic properties because in some number systems there's not even a concept of bigger or smaller, or sometimes a+b is different to b+a. You can't just sit back and assume all the things you're used to are still true, they're not until you can prove them. 

Is it that spectroscopy is wrong or some other physics at play?

Spectroscopy's wrong. Like I said before, if spectroscopy is right you've automatically disproven the FE Sun etc, there's no need to go any further. You don't need to even come close to redshift.
This is my whole problem with a lot of arguments like this; it's immediately just people leaping right in for overkill, and in doing so ignoring all logic. There's a reason you should always start with the simpler arguments; the more complex ones are built upon them. If you don't bother to know anything about the stars, the Sun... under FET, what is the point in making an argument based upon assuming their nature?

Quote from: RocketSauce on August 02, 2017, 09:28:59 AM

Unless you can prove red shift even can happen at all, like... on earth.

The problem being that the shape of the Earth impacts how you have to interpret observations from it, as I keep saying. The Sun is the perfect example of this; one change to the shape of the Earth and suddenly the Sun and stars are a whole lot closer. It's not a matter of shills, it's a matter of how the evidence for redshift simply does not make sense under FET.

Forget the sun! The topic is "red shift". The shift in frequency of an electromagnetic wave is taken as evidence of relative motion.
If the flat earthers have another explanation, I've yet to see it. BUT, it is still a valid argument that can hardly be interpreted any other way!
It is observed on the real earth, be it a Globe, square or even flat.

There is a reasonable, simple explanation for it with the Globe model, especially with the "nearer stars" - they are moving towards or away from us.

If there is no reasonable, simple explanation for it with the flat earth model, then there if "one more nail in its already overloaded coffin".

There is no way in the world that we are going to ignore things, just because they are not "part of the flat earth model".
If observations are made on the real earth and the Globe model can explain them but the flat earth cannot, though cheese!

I can confirm spectroscopy is not wrong.

Yes I know that.  In the FE theory, the stars and galaxies are affixed to the firmament.

Are they completely fixed?  Because historical astronomy shows that the constellations are changing.


It doesn't matter though.  Flat Earth isn't treated as a 'theory' because when it predicts something wrong, rather than revise the theory, we instead enter the realm of subversion and containment.

Quote from: RocketSauce on August 02, 2017, 09:28:59 AM

Unless you can prove red shift even can happen at all, like... on earth.

The problem being that the shape of the Earth impacts how you have to interpret observations from it, as I keep saying. The Sun is the perfect example of this; one change to the shape of the Earth and suddenly the Sun and stars are a whole lot closer. It's not a matter of shills, it's a matter of how the evidence for redshift simply does not make sense under FET.

I'm sorry, could you please explain that differently? I know I'm a bit slow, but could you please elaborate, and throw in a couple of examples or comparisons as well please?

Thank you!

Forget the sun! The topic is "red shift". The shift in frequency of an electromagnetic wave is taken as evidence of relative motion.
If the flat earthers have another explanation, I've yet to see it. BUT, it is still a valid argument that can hardly be interpreted any other way!

Or more distant stars aren't identical to nearer stars (not unlikely under FET, most models have everything centred around the Earth), or light behaves differently under FET (pretty much certain)...

There is no way in the world that we are going to ignore things, just because they are not "part of the flat earth model".
If observations are made on the real earth and the Globe model can explain them but the flat earth cannot, though cheese!

Once again, that's not what I said. The issue is how many arguments follow from things that only hold under RET. How are you meant to draw any FE conclusion from that?

I'm sorry, could you please explain that differently? I know I'm a bit slow, but could you please elaborate, and throw in a couple of examples or comparisons as well please?

Thank you!

Look up Eratosphenes' experiment; the stated achievement of it is that it measured the curvature of the Earth. One of the ways the result can be explained is to point out that he assumed the Sun was incredibly far away, and if you assume the Earth is flat, instead of measuring curvature the experiment gives you distance to the Sun.
And then from that you can use parallax to gauge how far away stars are, with reference to the Sun, and so on.
Under RET, a distant Sun provides evidence of curvature, and said distant Sun makes stars much further away, etc. Under FET a flat Earth provdies evidence of a nearby Sun, which in turn makes stars much nearer.
Which gives us one difference already: under FET the Sun is much closer than under RET.
If you were to try and take the RE Sun and put it in the FE model, we would all be dead. There is no way for the RE Sun to be that close without frying us; thus there must be some issues with how we determine its composition. (Maybe a flaw with spectroscopy, maybe a flaw with applying it on that scale, etc).
If you work under an FE model, there are consequences. You can't just shrug it off and try to apply everything determined by RET without giving it a second thought.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 03, 2017, 06:03:57 AM

Forget the sun! The topic is "red shift". The shift in frequency of an electromagnetic wave is taken as evidence of relative motion.
If the flat earthers have another explanation, I've yet to see it. BUT, it is still a valid argument that can hardly be interpreted any other way!

Or more distant stars aren't identical to nearer stars (not unlikely under FET, most models have everything centred around the Earth), or light behaves differently under FET (pretty much certain)...

How can one have significantly "more distant stars" on the flat earth?
Though admittedly FET is so vague about celestial objects that one can hardly know what to expect.

But the fact remains red and blue shifts under the currently accepted model.
I would again say that if flat earthers cannot explain that then another . . . . . . .

But your claim "distant stars aren't identical to nearer stars" is a bit hard to swallow.
What you are claiming is that stars, even the nearest stars, a made of different matter - that's more than I'll accept.
You, being a mathematician, might be able to swallow that sort of thing.

Quote

There is no way in the world that we are going to ignore things, just because they are not "part of the flat earth model".
If observations are made on the real earth and the Globe model can explain them but the flat earth cannot, though cheese!

Once again, that's not what I said. The issue is how many arguments follow from things that only hold under RET. How are you meant to draw any FE conclusion from that?

In many cases, I think that it's more like "how many arguments follow from things that only hold" on the real earth.
Please note that there is a big difference between observation or measurement and argument.
And I claim that any observation or measurement made on the "real earth" must be explanable under FET.

One such case is an extension of the Eratosthenes' measurement that you brought up in:

Look up Eratosphenes'(sic) experiment; the stated achievement of it is that it measured the curvature of the Earth. One of the ways the result can be explained is to point out that he assumed the Sun was incredibly far away, and if you assume the Earth is flat, instead of measuring curvature the experiment gives you distance to the Sun.

In the following, I am using modern values as the early values are subject to considerable conjecture.
Sure, Eratosthenes found that the sun's elevation changed by 7.2° when moving from a location where the sun was overhead, Syene, to one 800 km north.

From this, he deduced that since 7.2° is one fiftieth of a circle, that the circumference of the earth was 50 x 800 = 40,000 km.
When applied to a flat earth and a near sun these same figures do give a distance to the sun of 3,958 miles or 6370 km.
See

Quote from: Jane on July 31, 2017, 11:32:14 AM

<< Look who this was to! >>

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It is easy to show (it's in "the Wiki" anyway) that sun height =  distance/tan(angle) = 3,958 miles or 6370 km.

Now it is very poor science to do a measurement only once, not that I blame Eratosthenes, 800 km was a big hike in those days.

But, now we can use much larger "base-lines", so if we chose
          45° the sun height comes out at 5000 km or 3107 miles or if the earth is a Globe 40,000 km or 24,854 miles.
          67.5° the sun height comes out at 3112 km or 1934 miles or if the earth is a Globe 40,000 km or 24,854 miles.
          90° the sun height comes out at 0 km or 0 miles or if the earth is a Globe 40,000 km or 24,854 miles.
From this are we to deduce that the height of the sun on the flat earth is 6370 km, 5000 km, 3112 km or ZERO? You tell me!

So, trying to apply Eratosthenes'
          method to a flat earth gives very inconsistent results, but applying the to same
          method to the Globe's circumference the very consistent 40,000 km circumference.
It does look as though there is
         "Flat Earth Science" where you do it once and keep the answer if it "looks" good and
         "Real Earth Science" where you repeat the experiment under different conditions till some consistency is achieved.
Note that the above results are "too good" in that there are based on an ideal data - just as "the Wiki" does.

These posts go into (too much) more detal:
          So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high? « on: August 24, 2016, 02:22:33 PM »
          Re: Does ANYONE have ANY evidence that we live on a spinning ball? « Reply #47 on: August 26, 2016, 11:24:04 PM »

Jane, you're flogging a dead horse and it's never going to get up and run!

How can one have significantly "more distant stars" on the flat earth?

What? By being more distant. What's the issue here?

But the fact remains red and blue shifts under the currently accepted model.

The currently accepted model is also a globe. Flat earthers pretty clearly don't accept that. Prove something happens without appealing to something that doesn't or can't hold under FET and you'll have an argument. Until then, this is all pointless.
I cannot believe how many times I have had to repeat that. Do you disagree?

Jane, you're flogging a dead horse and it's never going to get up and run!

Rabinoz, you're completely changing the subject rather than paying any attention to what I was illustrating.
Great, FET's a dead horse, you're the one that's trying to refute it, I'm just trying to make sure you stay honest.

Quote from: rabinoz on August 03, 2017, 03:32:55 PM

How can one have significantly "more distant stars" on the flat earth?

What? By being more distant. What's the issue here?

A few thousand kilometres tops! And their model gives virtually no information on the topic anyway. Surely we can question it!

Quote

But the fact remains red and blue shifts under the currently accepted model.

The currently accepted model is also a globe. Flat earthers pretty clearly don't accept that. Prove something happens without appealing to something that doesn't or can't hold under FET and you'll have an argument. Until then, this is all pointless.
I cannot believe how many times I have had to repeat that. Do you disagree?

Red and blue shifts are measured on the real earth! They are measurements and so the FE model should be able to explain those measurements.
Red and blue shifts are not interpretations that depend on the model!

I am doing no more that asking for flat earth explanations of observations and measurements made on the only earth we have, the real earth!

And I can say over and over! I cannot believe how many times I have had to repeat that. Do you disagree?

Quote

Jane, you're flogging a dead horse and it's never going to get up and run!

Rabinoz, you're completely changing the subject rather than paying any attention to what I was illustrating.
Great, FET's a dead horse, you're the one that's trying to refute it, I'm just trying to make sure you stay honest.

No I most certainly did not! YOU brought up the Erastosthanes Experiment and I showed than the Flat Earthers are completely inconsistent in their interpretation of his measurements!

Gotta go!

Hence the problem arises.  When you can make up things on the fly to explain something away with no regard to that explanation not matching or outright breaking previous observations or previous "explanations" then you are no longer in a realm where you can honestly analyze a model or hypothesis.  If we can just throw out things randomly like this what use is it to discuss any further? 
If you can explain one tiny piece away, but that explanation contradicts another explanation, how does that make your argument sound for each piece of the whole if the whole cannot survive without all the pieces?
I mean if I have two halves of a recipe for a pie from two different cook books, one being apple and the other being peach, but my model pie is blueberry cobbler, how do I make it if I can only find oranges and I am on a raft at sea?  That's about as much sense as most FE explanations get also.  It's disjointed contradictory hodgepodges of things that usually have one underlying theme, "The government is lying to you about... stuff... for reasons"

Hence the problem arises.  When you can make up things on the fly to explain something away with no regard to that explanation not matching or outright breaking previous observations or previous "explanations" then you are no longer in a realm where you can honestly analyze a model or hypothesis.  If we can just throw out things randomly like this what use is it to discuss any further? 
If you can explain one tiny piece away, but that explanation contradicts another explanation, how does that make your argument sound for each piece of the whole if the whole cannot survive without all the pieces?
I mean if I have two halves of a recipe for a pie from two different cook books, one being apple and the other being peach, but my model pie is blueberry cobbler, how do I make it if I can only find oranges and I am on a raft at sea?  That's about as much sense as most FE explanations get also.  It's disjointed contradictory hodgepodges of things that usually have one underlying theme, "The government is lying to you about... stuff... for reasons"

So, you are saying that you come here everyday, but don't want to hear any of our theories?  You must be really bored. 

Red and blue shifts are not interpretations that depend on the model!

Great, then you ought to be able to justify them using explanations that make sense under FET.
You are asking for explanations for something that you are not showing even happens under FET. What is the point in that? You're repeating over and over that they happen on the real Earth, you are never justifying it with explanations that hold under FET.

No I most certainly did not! YOU brought up the Erastosthanes Experiment and I showed than the Flat Earthers are completely inconsistent in their interpretation of his measurements!

Again, it was illustrating a point. Are you just going to ignore the fact that RET and FET are completely different models?

Quote from: Mikey T. on August 03, 2017, 08:14:11 PM

Hence the problem arises.  When you can make up things on the fly to explain something away with no regard to that explanation not matching or outright breaking previous observations or previous "explanations" then you are no longer in a realm where you can honestly analyze a model or hypothesis.  If we can just throw out things randomly like this what use is it to discuss any further? 
If you can explain one tiny piece away, but that explanation contradicts another explanation, how does that make your argument sound for each piece of the whole if the whole cannot survive without all the pieces?
I mean if I have two halves of a recipe for a pie from two different cook books, one being apple and the other being peach, but my model pie is blueberry cobbler, how do I make it if I can only find oranges and I am on a raft at sea?  That's about as much sense as most FE explanations get also.  It's disjointed contradictory hodgepodges of things that usually have one underlying theme, "The government is lying to you about... stuff... for reasons"

So, you are saying that you come here everyday, but don't want to hear any of our theories?  You must be really bored. 

The problem is Jora you have no theories that actually make any sense, unless you are keeping them under wraps!

Quote from: rabinoz on August 03, 2017, 05:06:22 PM

Red and blue shifts are not interpretations that depend on the model!

Great, then you ought to be able to justify them using explanations that make sense under FET.
You are asking for explanations for something that you are not showing even happens under FET. What is the point in that? You're repeating over and over that they happen on the real Earth, you are never justifying it with explanations that hold under FET.

Quote

No I most certainly did not! YOU brought up the Erastosthanes Experiment and I showed than the Flat Earthers are completely inconsistent in their interpretation of his measurements!

Again, it was illustrating a point. Are you just going to ignore the fact that RET and FET are completely different models?

I just wonder if you actually understand what you are posting. If the earth were flat and the stars were as the flat earthers describe, who could tell what the resulting physical laws would have to be that dictated how such a universe would operate.
This discussion reminds me of the one concerning DET and its primary energy source.
If the earth were flat we would be in a very different universe that we currently inhabit.
In the universe we do live in its laws preclude the existance of a celestial body the size of the earth being flat. I know you don't like this fact, but there you are. If you are unable to understand that then, to quote some idiot i head recently, then your just not working hard enough.

I just wonder if you actually understand what you are posting. If the earth were flat and the stars were as the flat earthers describe, who could tell what the resulting physical laws would have to be that dictated how such a universe would operate.

Well, yes, that's what I've been saying for quite a while now. Theoretically it's possible to deduce such laws to some extent, or try to develop a model that works based on looking at what we observe and deducing what must be happening (if not why, at first), but it's pretty obvious those laws would be completely different to RET.

In the universe we do live in its laws preclude the existance of a celestial body the size of the earth being flat. I know you don't like this fact, but there you are. If you are unable to understand that then, to quote some idiot i head recently, then your just not working hard enough.

I like it just fine. You're the one who's trying to apply the laws and model of RET to mount an argument against FET, rather than acknowledging the FE model's completely different.

Quote from: Mikey T. on August 03, 2017, 08:14:11 PM

Hence the problem arises.  When you can make up things on the fly to explain something away with no regard to that explanation not matching or outright breaking previous observations or previous "explanations" then you are no longer in a realm where you can honestly analyze a model or hypothesis.  If we can just throw out things randomly like this what use is it to discuss any further? 
If you can explain one tiny piece away, but that explanation contradicts another explanation, how does that make your argument sound for each piece of the whole if the whole cannot survive without all the pieces?
I mean if I have two halves of a recipe for a pie from two different cook books, one being apple and the other being peach, but my model pie is blueberry cobbler, how do I make it if I can only find oranges and I am on a raft at sea?  That's about as much sense as most FE explanations get also.  It's disjointed contradictory hodgepodges of things that usually have one underlying theme, "The government is lying to you about... stuff... for reasons"

So, you are saying that you come here everyday, but don't want to hear any of our theories?  You must be really bored. 

So that's what you got from what I said? 
I guess you are agreeing that all FE theories have no basis in reality due to their hodgepodge nature?  I am glad you finally decided to come clean. 

Quote from: Lonegranger on August 04, 2017, 12:49:39 PM

I just wonder if you actually understand what you are posting. If the earth were flat and the stars were as the flat earthers describe, who could tell what the resulting physical laws would have to be that dictated how such a universe would operate.

Well, yes, that's what I've been saying for quite a while now. Theoretically it's possible to deduce such laws to some extent, or try to develop a model that works based on looking at what we observe and deducing what must be happening (if not why, at first), but it's pretty obvious those laws would be completely different to RET.

Quote

In the universe we do live in its laws preclude the existance of a celestial body the size of the earth being flat. I know you don't like this fact, but there you are. If you are unable to understand that then, to quote some idiot i head recently, then your just not working hard enough.

I like it just fine. You're the one who's trying to apply the laws and model of RET to mount an argument against FET, rather than acknowledging the FE model's completely different.

Well what are you waiting for....go deduce them. I'll really look forward to your new theory of everything.

Well what are you waiting for....go deduce them. I'll really look forward to your new theory of everything.

Why should I? I'm not a FEer, I just think it's a bit silly to make claims you won't justify.

Quote from: Lonegranger on August 05, 2017, 02:52:03 PM

Well what are you waiting for....go deduce them. I'll really look forward to your new theory of everything.

Why should I? I'm not a FEer, I just think it's a bit silly to make claims you won't justify.

What a cop out....all you can ever do is play the negativity card.
Talk about silly!

What a cop out....all you can ever do is play the negativity card.

Someone has to call REers out on poor debating skills.

Wait .. Jane, did you just call us out on poor debate skills?  You are barking up the wrong tree, my friend.

You are requiring that, in order for me to debate why redshift disproves the FE world, I need to bring to the table a working, plausible explanation of redshift in the FE world.  That is a fundamentally flawed idea of what constitutes debate.

Here's how this thing called debate works:

There is an observable, measurable phenomenon in our world that has been peer reviewed and no one can deny the existence of.  This observation seems to fit one theoretical model of the world better than another theoretical model.  So...

1 - One group, we'll call them Group RE, brings the observation to the table.
2 - Group RE then provides a valid explanation of why the observation works in their model, using science, mathematics, and reasoning.
3 - Proponents of the other model, we'll call them Group FE, are offered the opportunity to do the same, and thus they do.
4 - Group RE then provides a rebuttal of what Group FE had to say in an attempt to disprove them.
5 - Group FE is then offered the opportunity to do the same.

Obviously, were Group FE to bring a question to the table, then they would have the first chance to defend their model, and Group RE would be obliged to respond.

After 90 posts, we got as far as step 2.  So far, the only attempts I have seen for step 3 from Group FE are "ether," though having none of the mathematics or science to back it up thus rendering it meaningless, and something called "tired light" which appears to have been debunked long ago.

Jane, you have accused me of asking a question to which I believe the FE model has no answer for no other purpose than to discredit FE.  Well, duh, YES, that's EXACTLY what I'm doing.  For you to say:

"To disprove a model you have to contradict something that said model states, not insert something new in and rebut your own inclusion."

and

"Sure, when you can demonstrate that it happens under FET"

and

"You can't prove the Earth's never going to be flat until you disprove FET, which you can't do until you've actually looked at those models and consequences"

and

"The problem is when people ask for an explanation of why something doesn't fit an entirely separate model. "

and

"Great, then you ought to be able to justify them using explanations that make sense under FET. "

and

"You are asking for explanations for something that you are not showing even happens under FET. What is the point in that? You're repeating over and over that they happen on the real Earth, you are never justifying it with explanations that hold under FET. "

means you clearly expect me to come up with step 3 myself.  No!  NO NO NO!  That is NOT how a debate works!  I am clearly trying to disprove the FE model by bringing to the table a known, observable phenomenon that appears to have no rational explanation in the model I am trying to disprove, and it is up to the proponents of FE to show me I am wrong.

If I had a plausible explanation for why redshift works in the FE world, then there would be no purpose whatsoever for my original question, now, would there?  Your idea of what is required to debate a subject would render the whole purpose of a debate quite moot.

I still await step 3, a valid, working, mathematical explanation for why stars appear redshifted in the FE world.

(Rabinoz, the closer stars are blueshifted because the movement of stars close to us, and in most of our galaxy, are bound gravitationally to us, and the individual movement of our neighbors far overcome the expansion of the universe.  In fact, the Andromeda Galaxy is also gravitationally bound with us, and is actually getting closer.  It takes enormous distances for the expansion of the universe to overcome the individual movements of stars that might be otherwise moving in our direction.)

You are requiring that, in order for me to debate why redshift disproves the FE world, I need to bring to the table a working, plausible explanation of redshift in the FE world.  That is a fundamentally flawed idea of what constitutes debate.

Uh, no, I'm saying that if you want to use "FET doesn't explain redshift," as an argument you need to demonstrate that the evidence for redshift's existence still holds under FET. Otherwise you're asking for an explanation of something they have no reason to believe happens, and what's the point of that?

Quote from: savagepilot on August 06, 2017, 05:17:16 AM

You are requiring that, in order for me to debate why redshift disproves the FE world, I need to bring to the table a working, plausible explanation of redshift in the FE world.  That is a fundamentally flawed idea of what constitutes debate.

Uh, no, I'm saying that if you want to use "FET doesn't explain redshift," as an argument you need to demonstrate that the evidence for redshift's existence still holds under FET. Otherwise you're asking for an explanation of something they have no reason to believe happens, and what's the point of that?

Again, and for the final time, no I do not need to demonstrate anything. It has already been demonstrated. Science happens. Redshift happens. Doesn't matter whether the proponents of FE "believe" it or not, it's real and it exists and anyone who denies it has their head in the sand. I have an explantion for it, I have applied it to my model of the world.

While I believe that FE cannot explain reddhift, it's possible I just haven't seen any reasonable explanation from the FE camp. You think it's incumbent upon me to do their work for them. Nope, but I am open to hear their theories ("ether" notwithstanding, since a word without backup is nothing at all). I await.

While I believe that FE cannot explain reddhift, it's possible I just haven't seen any reasonable explanation from the FE camp. You think it's incumbent upon me to do their work for them. Nope, but I am open to hear their theories ("ether" notwithstanding, since a word without backup is nothing at all). I await.

I don't see how the expansion of the universe is something that can't happen if the Earth is flat... So I don't see why I couldn't provide any FET. How about my own - no ether in that.

Again, and for the final time, no I do not need to demonstrate anything. It has already been demonstrated. Science happens. Redshift happens. Doesn't matter whether the proponents of FE "believe" it or not, it's real and it exists and anyone who denies it has their head in the sand. I have an explantion for it, I have applied it to my model of the world.

It's been demonstrated under RET. Look at the evidence; it isn't believed just because, it's believed because it follows from observation and evidence. The problem is those observations take on entirely different meanings under RET (see: Eratosphenes and the distance to the Sun).
If it's based on evidence, it should be trivial to give that evidence; the problem is that it's evidence that doesn't hold under FET. It assumes the impossible RE composition of the stars, it assumes distances that can't be justified...
How many times does this need to be said?

Quote from: savagepilot on August 06, 2017, 06:19:43 AM

Again, and for the final time, no I do not need to demonstrate anything. It has already been demonstrated. Science happens. Redshift happens. Doesn't matter whether the proponents of FE "believe" it or not, it's real and it exists and anyone who denies it has their head in the sand. I have an explantion for it, I have applied it to my model of the world.

It's been demonstrated under RET. Look at the evidence; it isn't believed just because, it's believed because it follows from observation and evidence. The problem is those observations take on entirely different meanings under RET (see: Eratosphenes and the distance to the Sun).
If it's based on evidence, it should be trivial to give that evidence; the problem is that it's evidence that doesn't hold under FET. It assumes the impossible RE composition of the stars, it assumes distances that can't be justified...
How many times does this need to be said?

Redshift is not believed. It IS.  If the evidence, which is irrefutable, doesn't hold under FET, then FET is flawed.  How many times does this need to be said?

Many many many times sir, the lady has a problem admitting she is wrong.

Quote from: savagepilot on August 06, 2017, 06:19:43 AM

While I believe that FE cannot explain reddhift, it's possible I just haven't seen any reasonable explanation from the FE camp. You think it's incumbent upon me to do their work for them. Nope, but I am open to hear their theories ("ether" notwithstanding, since a word without backup is nothing at all). I await.

I don't see how the expansion of the universe is something that can't happen if the Earth is flat... So I don't see why I couldn't provide any FET. How about my own - no ether in that.

It really amazes me how you and some other people on this forum don't actually get the implications of flat earth belief and how they would drastically change the laws of science. For a flat planet to actually exist the universal laws would have to be very different from the ones we experience and the universe would, as a result, be a very different place from the one we find ourselves in. Just think about it.