Let's break this down

  • 23 Replies
  • 1953 Views
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Let's break this down
« on: November 10, 2017, 05:09:01 PM »
I'm sick of coming here. I don't even know how I'm alive right now after the last time but whatever. Every time I come back I think maybe I'll find one genuine conversation but no, it's always the same. I'm not going to bother.
So instead have one good, long breakdown. What FET is, why it is scientifically preferred, and why the rounders on this site know full well that their notion is dead.

1
There is so much evidence that RET has failed.

We could talk about the formation of such a world. Under RET all celestial bodies are said to have formed because of gravity. Disparate particles were scattered throughout the universe, and said particles collided, ultimately being drawn inwards. This is easy to disprove with basic knowledge of momentum. If one particle collides with another they are not going to stick together, one is going to knock the other away. Further, basic knowledge of error will tell you that the movement will not have any net direction, a particle is knocked one way, and then is immediately knocked the other; even if particles do stick together it could be struck away, the same way to see balls on a Newton's cradle move.
I have tried to discuss this with REers before. They could only resort to metallic bonding: metals, which I remind you, could not exist under RET before the formation of stars.
Gravity will not make particles of dust stick together. There is no center to pull them to before a planet exists, and no reason for the particles to be particularly focused at various random locations to later become each stellar system. All you get is random collisions that cancel each other out and leave you with nothing. The absolute best case scenario for the round earther is one star, one world, right in the middle of everything, as all the particles were drawn back to the center, even if you can grant the notion of gravity magically making dust stick together and ignore momentum. Clearly there is more than one star.

We could disprove RET with reference to gravity and tides.
According to the round earther, tides occur because the moon exerts more force, from gravity, on the side of the Earth closer to it. By the time the moon's gravity reaches the far side of the Earth it is substantially weaker.
This is well-established under RET; there is something known as the Roche limit. Any satellite that gets closer to a planetary body than the Roche limit of said world would be torn apart by those tidal forces, with the force on the far side of the object being greater than those on the near side. It would quite literally be torn apart.
Of course, all us humans are within the Roche limit, but then we're not satellites. It is still an undeniable fact that there is a constantly varied force on each of us, and even on our buildings, where the tops are subject to a different force than the bottoms. This disparity is supposed to be enough to tear apart whole moons.
The response to this? Nothing. Obsessing over the fact I used the Roche limit as an illustration, and ignoring the central thrust of the argument.

We can also look at sunsets. The light at sunrise/sunset turns red due to Rayleigh scattering, when it passes through a lot more air. It even makes the sky around it look red.
Curiously this behavior is specific to the Sun and its environs. Note of course that all that matters is how far the Sun travels through the air, it wouldn't scatter in the vacuum RET says composes most of the distance between us and the Sun. And let us not forget the most important part of RET; the curve of the Earth. When the Sun sets it goes behind that curve, so concerned strictly with the atmosphere, the light from it only passes through a little more air than any other object you care to mention that goes over the horizon. The only difference is altitude, but given that air is much thinner at height, and that the Sun and sky can go red some distance above the horizon, we are left with two problems.
One, skyscrapers. Travel away from one, no matter how tall, the top never goes red. Indeed, the same can be said for stars. Why is the Sun unique in turning red?
Two, turn your back to the sunset. If it is the distance light travels that affects the color, one should expect the sky farthest from the Sun to turn red first.
All this is more than enough to prove that the celestial bodies in the sky cannot function the way RET states.
The response to this? Handwaving, blanket denial, and a total lack of reasoning.

These are just three of the arguments I have given in my time here.
But any round earther will tell you that no FEer has arguments for their position, or that we only resort to the 'look out the window!' cliche. It doesn't matter how long they've been here, it doesn't matter how many threads they've seen and even posted in, they will tell you we have nothing.
They will lie, right to your face.

2
What is FET?
When we realize the flaws in the model we're all taught, we look further. We think and consider new options.
A flat earther is naturally skeptical. It slows the progress of developing a model, but it ensures that when solid conclusions are reached, when there is consensus, what we have is solid.
As of yet there is no one, grand unified FE model. This is not a weakness, this openness is a strength. We are encouraged to think for ourselves, to work by ourselves, putting together the model we find the strongest.
When the flawed foundations of mainstream RET are rejected we begin anew. I personally drew from the basics of mainstream science, believing there was enough independent corroboration, but not all would do so. I also looked at many FE models, and focused on the strengths of each in order to combine them and form the model I call DET.
DET is complicated, as it must be. The same can be said of any FE model. They are not easy, they are not meant to be. They are detailed scientific theories put together in an attempt to explain what we observe in the world. One wouldn't go up to Einstein and complain relativity wasn't grade school level.
Not every FEer would come to FET this way, but even if they take the most illogical of paths it should not matter. FET stands on its own merits. We need no trickery to defend it.

How many of you round earthers out there can honestly say you tried to learn a model before rejecting it? I've barely seen it. The round earther talks a lot about being logical and scientific, but when push comes to shove they will regularly make sweeping claims about a topic they emphatically and blatantly know nothing about.
FE models are complicated because they are different. They replace assumptions of RET, focus on new elements, or define new concepts. Replace, say, gravity with just one different core tenet and the knock-on effects will be huge.
This doesn't equal ad hoc, despite the repeated lie. One thing may have many consequences, what matters is what that one thing is, how it is defined... It is never defined as 'does what is needed,' they are said to have limited, specific properties. For example the one altered entity under DET is defined to 'flow from high concentrations to low,' and that's all. This would have many consequences in the vicinity of any such concentrations, but one could hardly call it convenient. It's all defined from square one.
This could not stop someone lying though, nor would it stop someone being take in by that lie. After all, if you are not familiar with the complexities of the model and the chain of cause-and-effect much of it might well seem like it comes out of nowhere.

I would be remiss if I didn't bring up the much-misused Occam's Razor. There is the persistent idea in the world at large that an idea being complicated means that it's wrong: this is not true. Occam's razor compares two competing explanations and rejects the one that relies on too many unjustified assumptions.
One model might assume A, and A has consequences B, C, D, E... Ultimately though it has just that one assumption A.
The other model might assume A and B, A having no consequences and B causing C.
The latter model is simpler to learn, but it still relies on an unnecessary assumption. The former model, however is complicated, but less complex.

So what is a flat Earther?
Someone that rejects RET for reasons gone into lightly here, and who seeks to think for themselves. We develop our own models and work from there, creating entirely new ways to see the world.
When these new ways take effort to learn, to understand, many round earthers turn back there and then.

3
Evidence is a trivial topic to cover, but apparently merits it.
I define evidence for a theory as: an observation that is in line with what a theory states.
This may seem overly simple, but it functions. It covers experimentation, but doesn't limit itself to that so as to encompass both simpler avenues and sciences such as astronomy where one could hardly manipulate planets.
Alone however this is not enough to compare models. Multiple theories might be able to explain the same observations, and in that case one resorts to Occam's Razor and favors the one that makes fewest assumptions.
So evidence for a theory is:

a) an observation explained by a theory
b) when that theory relies on fewer assumptions than any alternative

I have received many objections to this, but a total lack of substance. I started a thread specifically to get to the bottom of why so many people complained about this, it gained 124 replies, and no one even tried.
There is no such thing as a piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states, nor is there ever a time where you'll find a theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.
You are welcome to try and think of one.

The most common complaint is that this isn't phrased the exact same way as the definition for evidence you get when you type it into google. But so what? We can think for ourselves, and this demonstrably functions.
The best attempt at a response is to focus on the idea of predictions; that a scientific theory must predict something new about the world.
However, this is flawed. It favors tradition over logic. if this were true one could hold to a theory that explained exactly as much as an alternative, but needed to assume an extra entity. This is illogical, with good reason. Predictions are used solely to gather more observations in line with a theory.
Hanging everything on verified predictions is to say a model is better because it came first.

It is worth pointing out, however, that FE models do make predictions. DET, for example, predicts a discontinuity in the rate at which gravity decreases with height. This is specific and testable.
It just isn't a test an amateur can carry out in the comfort of their own home and, really, what else would you expect? In the world we live in centuries have passed, RET has been nipped and tucked and tweaked and shifted, to the point it's groaning under the pressure, for all those observations to be fit into it. There are highly unlikely to be any simple classroom experiments that'd unearth a new fact.

So, FET offers falsifiable tests. It is based on logic after arguments demonstrated RET fails. FEers give evidence.
Don't you ever let a round earther tell you otherwise.
FET is a scientifically tenable theory that bears no resemblance to the lies REers knowingly spread.

4
So we've talked a lot about FET. Now, let's talk about the round earther.
They will make claims about models they do not know or understand. They will hurl abuse if you profess belief in FET. They will assume you are wrong before ever hearing a word from you. They will not listen. They have an idea of you in their head and nothing will ever dispel it.
They will make demands, and ignore you when you answer. They might ask you to perform an experiment, but they will disbelieve you if your results are not in line with what they want (yet they will not do the same experiment to confirm). They will expect you to do the most absurd of things irrespective of how much time and money you have.
They will delight in provoking you and antagonizing you, and when you finally snap they will take it as proof of your illogic.

There are two forms of round earther arguments.

The first is the 'How?' They will note something like the magnetic field of the Earth, geothermal energy, circumpolar stars, and asks how it occurs in FET.
This is not a disproof, and should not be treated as such. It is the equivalent of raising one's hand in the classroom; it asks a question about science. However most of the time it can only be answered with respect to other aspects of science. As I've said, FET is complicated. There are numerous departures from RET, so to answer such a question one either has to go from almost basics and explain the chain of consequences, or leave gaps simply saying 'this is how it is,' and give the immediately explanation for the observation.
Both answers are pointless. It is exhausting to explain an entire theory every time you are asked, and it goes ignored anyway. They brush it off, or skim it and come off with a worse misunderstanding than if they'd just guessed. And if you give the abridged version, they assume you have no more details rather then the fact you decided not to explain every little thing and be there all day. They say those gaps are assumptions, not separate topics you can and have explained elsewhere.
I link my DE model in my signature and have always. How often do you think people read the model before asking me about it, and how often do you think I am expected to regurgitate it on a whim?

The second type of argument is the informed one, the proper disproof, that specifically targets part of an FE model. These are exceedingly rare, and typically fail because the round earther either has no understanding of the model and does not wish to be corrected, or because aspects of RET were relied upon as assumptions and were shoved where they were not wanted.

The round earther on this site can easily be categorised. One could ask why they would come here, why they're interested in something so laughable in the world at large.
The answer is simple; they wish to feel superior. They come to laugh at the stupidity. They either ignore even the FAQ assuming they were the first people to ever think of an argument, or they read it, realize that FET is more complicated than they thought, and resolve to never put any effort in.
It doesn't matter that you have a model, they will not learn it. It doesn't matter that you've done experiments, they will ignore it. They are not here to learn FET and are just here to jeer and insult and make themselves feel smarter. They do not try to explain why you are wrong, they simply insist that they are right, and do so with more arrogance than you could imagine.
I have no doubt a select handful were interested in learning FET, perhaps to give it a fair say, but they are turned on by their own side just as much until they either leave or conform.

It is easy to spot the fallacies of a round earther.

a) exhaustion. They will either list countless arguments, or make overlong posts it would take an hour to respond to, and object when you don't quote and reply to each and every line. They will insist that if they could do it, you could do it, even when a FEer has countless round earthers to respond to while a round earther rarely has to engage with more than one flat earther. They will repeat the exact same question, even after acknowledging an answer.
b) circular reasoning. They will make a statement of RET, insist upon it, refuse to justify it, and claim that disproves FET. It does not matter how hard you push, they would not accept any other explanation.
c) tradition. They mount countless arguments that come down to no more than 'RET was here first.' They have had more time to develop their model so of course it has more details, none of that alters how false it is or how correct FET is.
d) distraction. They will try to drag the conversation to some grammatical quirk or word choice and totally ignore the point you're making. Sometimes they will even initiate a blatant change of topic from the one they are losing.

Which brings me to

5
FET is dead on arrival.
Not because of how it functions, but because no one will ever listen. No matter what experiments you perform, what predictions you make, you'll be met with the same.
A crowd of ignorance. Of straw men. Round earthers who will pluck some nonsense you never said and insist you defend it. They insist they know your own model better than you and insist you defend their straw man rather than correct themselves. They will focus on irrelevancies and trivialities, they will spam and spam until you get tired, and then they'll claim that as a victory and hound you. They will lie and berate and belittle and act shocked when you lose your temper.
And not one will they ever listen. Not once will they take the time to learn FET in order to make an informed judgement. No, they've already made up their minds. You'd think it would be no trouble if they were secure in their beliefs.

But FET never gets a chance.

No debate. No honesty. Just lies, insults, fallacy after fallacy, and even this post will be met with more of the same outrage.

and there is no. goddamn. point. to any of it. All that work for nothing.
DET is yours to learn and make your own judgement on. Don't reject it because it's different, take the time to understand it, to see how it does work rather than assuming it doesn't, and make up your own mind.

Sooner or later meanwhile I'll succeed and you'll be rid of me. If months of work is met with nothing but the same childish fucking insults and complete and utter ignorance, people making all their sweeping arrogant claims without knowing a fucking thing, then there really is no point.

Adios. Hopefully for good.
I hope any other flat earthers learn from my mistakes.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2017, 07:00:11 PM »
maybe I'll find one genuine conversation but no... I'm not going to bother.
A genuine conversation is a 2 way street. You need to be willing to listen to what the other person says and respond to it rather than just spout nonsense and insult those that refute you.

This is easy to disprove with basic knowledge of momentum. If one particle collides with another they are not going to stick together, one is going to knock the other away.
You might want to work on your knowledge of momentum.
If you have 2 particles which collide, they can fuse together and the momentum of the resulting object will be the sum of the momentum of the 2 other objects.
Remember, momentum is a vector quantity, not a scalar.
That means it has direction. That means you can have 2 particles collide and the end result is the resulting object is stationary.

You can even test this yourself:
Get a bowl, get 2 balls, drop them into the bowl, with them rolling down the side. See what happens.

the same way to see balls on a Newton's cradle move.
Which is based upon transferring momentum from one end to the other, and using metal balls which will not easily deform or lose the energy.
Try it with rubber balls, or rocks. It wont work as well.

I have tried to discuss this with REers before.
Discuss, or preach ignoring anything they say?
There is a difference.

They could only resort to metallic bonding: metals, which I remind you, could not exist under RET before the formation of stars.
So don't use metals as an example.
If you want star formation, you need to do it with a gas.

Gravity will not make particles of dust stick together. There is no center to pull them to before a planet exists
They don't need a centre. They need a non-homogenous environment such that the force of gravity doesn't balance out perfectly.

All you get is random collisions that cancel each other out and leave you with nothing.
No you don't.
While you have random collisions, these form a very chaotic system where that slight initial randomness is multiplied resulting in a structure forming.

We could disprove RET with reference to gravity and tides.
You mean PROVE RET with gravity and tides.

This is well-established under RET; there is something known as the Roche limit. Any satellite that gets closer to a planetary body than the Roche limit of said world would be torn apart by those tidal forces
You have already had your ass handed to you on this by me and many others. Why repeat the same lies?
This only applies to satellites that are held together by purely gravitational forces.
The Roche limit is where the tidal forces overcome the self-gravitation of the object.
It does not apply to objects held together by other forces like electrostatics.

It is still an undeniable fact that there is a constantly varied force on each of us, and even on our buildings, where the tops are subject to a different force than the bottoms.
And due to their small size, this force amounts to nothing.
It is given by Ft=2*k*dr/r^3 (or 2*dr/r times the weight)

So that means even if you have a magic 1 km tall building, that will have a force of 0.03% of its weight.
This is nothing, it will not tare itself apart.

This disparity is supposed to be enough to tear apart whole moons.
Yes, MASSIVE moons, like Earth's at a radius of over 1000 km, which is primarily held together by its own gravity, not by electrostatic forces like we are.

The response to this? Nothing. Obsessing over the fact I used the Roche limit as an illustration, and ignoring the central thrust of the argument.
No, our response was pointing out that the Roche limit only applies to objects held together by their own gravity; that the tidal forces on us are insignificant as we are held together by much stronger forces than our own gravity.
Meanwhile you obsessed over tiny disagreements which didn't effect your argument being refuted.

We can also look at sunsets.
Which conclusively prove Earth is round, as the sun drops below the horizon, meaning it would need to go below a flat Earth, yet remains above some point on Earth.

And let us not forget the most important part of RET; the curve of the Earth. When the Sun sets it goes behind that curve, so concerned strictly with the atmosphere, the light from it only passes through a little more air than any other object you care to mention that goes over the horizon.
An object going over the horizon is typically only a few km away.
The oblique angle means light from the sun travels those few km, and then a few hundred more, so hardly "a little more".


One, skyscrapers. Travel away from one, no matter how tall, the top never goes red.
Try constructing one that is 50 km tall. See if that goes red.

Indeed, the same can be said for stars. Why is the Sun unique in turning red?
Their size and intensity.

Two, turn your back to the sunset. If it is the distance light travels that affects the color, one should expect the sky farthest from the Sun to turn red first.
I've explained this to you before as well.
You are ignoring the actual mechanism.
The light doesn't simply become redder the more atmosphere it goes through.
Red light scatters at low angles, blue light scatters at high angles.
You would expect the atmosphere which would have a small angle between you and the sun (and thus a large angle for the path of the light) to turn red last (if at all).
It would be the small angle near the sun which turns red first.

The response to this? Handwaving, blanket denial, and a total lack of reasoning.
Explaining why you are wrong, which you simply ignore.

These are just three of the arguments I have given in my time here.
But any round earther will tell you that no FEer has arguments for their position... they will tell you we have nothing.
Because your arguments have all been refuted. You have nothing.

They will lie, right to your face.
No, that would be you, such as your blatant lies above.

As of yet there is no one, grand unified FE model. This is not a weakness, this openness is a strength.
No. This is a massive weakness.
Each model has a serious flaw (or many) which it is unable to explain. Another model is thus invented to explain that problem, but it then has its own.
That makes it a massive weakness. Unlike RET, which has a single unified model, you need to resort to numerous different models to try and explain various things.

I personally drew from the basics of mainstream science, believing there was enough independent corroboration
If you did that you would have accepted RET.
You rejected any part of mainstream science you didn't like and kept the bits you wanted.

They are detailed scientific theories put together in an attempt to explain what we observe in the world.
They are not scientific theories in any way.
They are pathetic attempts to pretend Earth is flat.

FET stands on its own merits.
You mean completely fails on its own merits, while RET stands.

We need no trickery to defend it.
Then what was with all the attempts at trickery above, like the Roche limit?

How many of you round earthers out there can honestly say you tried to learn a model before rejecting it?
Me. Probably plenty of others.

They replace assumptions of RET, focus on new elements, or define new concepts. Replace, say, gravity with just one different core tenet and the knock-on effects will be huge.
Except they aren't assumptions of RET, they are proven facts of science.
Yes, replace gravity and it will have huge knock-on effects.
UA will result in Earth tearing itself apart.
Denspressure will render mercury barometers useless and completely destroy buoyancy.
Your magic aether relies upon pure magic to force things together without then tearing them apart with your cycles.
EM would result in objects blowing themselves apart or blowing other objects away.

And they all fail to explain cavendish (or outright contradict it).

This doesn't equal ad hoc
They are ad-hoc explanations to try and replace reality with baseless assumptions to pretend Earth is flat.

the one altered entity under DET is defined to 'flow from high concentrations to low,' and that's all.
No it isn't. It is defined to magically flow in continuing cycles such that it is not moving from high to low, but instead cycling. It is frictionless, yet magically pulls matter with it but then doesn't, and so on.

So what is a flat Earther?
Someone that rejects RET for reasons gone into lightly here, and who seeks to think for themselves.
There are many reasons they become FEers, none of which are rational. At best they were conned by a flawed argument.
And if they thought for themselves, honestly and rationally, they would end up back at RET.

I define evidence for a theory as: an observation that is in line with what a theory states.
And I pointed out the problem with that.
It makes almost everything evidence.
A better definition is an observation that indicates one hypothesis is more likely to be true than another . Or:
An observation that is in line with what a hypothesis states but is against what another states.

This is just your pathetic way of trying to say there is "evidence of FE," when in reality, it's just when you can't distinguish between FE and RE.

I started a thread specifically to get to the bottom of why so many people complained about this, it gained 124 replies, and no one even tried.
No, you set up a strawman thread where you could dismiss the main objections as not meeting the requirements of the OP.

It is worth pointing out, however, that FE models do make predictions.
It is also worth pointing out that these predictions are almost always shown to be false by observation.

DET, for example, predicts a discontinuity in the rate at which gravity decreases with height. This is specific and testable.
But until you establish what those discontinuities are (i.e. their magnitude) it is unfalsifiable. You also are yet to go and test this.

So, FET offers falsifiable tests. It is based on logic after arguments demonstrated RET fails. FEers give evidence.
Don't you ever let a round earther tell you otherwise.
I will tell you otherwise.
Yes, it has some falsifiable tests, like using the model to calculate the location of the sun, which fails, falsifying the model.
Others' like yours, have tests which do not make the model falsifiable, as you could simply say the discontinuities are smaller.
There are no logical arguments indicating RET fails, just deceit.
And FEers are yet to present actual evidence of their models.

So we've talked a lot about FET. Now, let's talk about the round earther.
No thanks. RET stands on its own merit. There are so many different REers it isn't funny.
While some will match your claims, there are plenty of others.
Such as those that rationally and honestly refute the arguments of FEers, with understanding.


There are two forms of round earther arguments.
I would say there are several.
There are those from a position of "ignorance" where they ask for an explanation for something under FE which is already explained under mainstream science, like gravity or buoyancy.
Then there are those that provide arguments which indicate Earth is round, like observed curvature.
Then there are those which show a particular FE model is wrong by pointing out a contradiction between it and reality.

typically fail because the round earther either has no understanding of the model and does not wish to be corrected
No, they often succeed, because the "correction" is a load of crap which amounts to the FEer not wanting to admit their model is wrong.

One could ask why they would come here, why they're interested in something so laughable in the world at large.
Because all it takes for stupidity to triumph is for intelligent people to say nothing.
I come here to point out the BS, so that others are less likely to be conned into it.

It can also provide a mental challenge at times.

The answer is simple; they wish to feel superior.
No. That would be you.
There isn't really anything special about being a REer. The majority of the world accepts Earth is round.
However, for the FEer, they feel special. They feel they have broken away from the chains of conformity and thought for themselves and realised something most people don't.

Don't you think that sounds like they are feeling superior?

a) exhaustion. They will either list countless arguments, or make overlong posts
You mean like you and Sandokhan?
If you don't want our posts to be long, keep yours short, and don't bring up complex things which will take a while to respond.

They will repeat the exact same question, even after acknowledging an answer.
No, after acknowledging that what was provided didn't actually answer the question.

come down to no more than 'RET was here first.' They have had more time to develop their model so of course it has more details, none of that alters how false it is or how correct FET is.
No, they will typically do the opposite, indicating that FE isn't anything new, that people in the past thought Earth was flat, only to have humanity realise that that belief was wrong, discard it, and accept Earth is round.

In developing a model for the shape of the world, starting from the assumption it was flat, people concluded it was roung.

They will try to drag the conversation to some grammatical quirk or word choice and totally ignore the point you're making. Sometimes they will even initiate a blatant change of topic from the one they are losing.
Just like you and Sandy. In fact, Sandy almost entirely refuses to stay on topic, as that is his "debate" tactic. Continually changing subjects to avoid having to admit he was wrong.

FET is dead on arrival.
Not because of how it functions, but because no one will ever listen.
No. Entirely because of how it functions, which is to say it doesn't function.

No matter what experiments you perform, what predictions you make, you'll be met with the same.
Because you ignore all the problems.
It doesn't matter if you can make your model predict one thing which you can show.
If that is not general, and can't be applied to other times or locations or things, then it isn't useful.
Being able to predict that Polaris will appear at 45 degrees angle of elevation at 45 degrees north is fairly useless, when it fails to predict the correct angle of elevation elsewhere.


But FET never gets a chance.
No debate. No honesty. Just lies, insults, fallacy after fallacy, and even this post will be met with more of the same outrage.
Because that is all the FEers can do to try and defend it.
Meanwhile the REers bring honesty, evidence and rational arguments.

DET is yours to learn and make your own judgement on. Don't reject it because it's different, take the time to understand it, to see how it does work rather than assuming it doesn't, and make up your own mind.
No it doesn't. I have already addressed why it doesn't work without adding in pure magic (by which I mean numerous assumptions, some of which contradict other assumptions). You failed to provide any adequate answer.
You weren't even able to provide a justification of how your aether keeps flowing rather than almost instantly settling out.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41390
Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2017, 07:03:50 PM »
I'm sick of coming here.
Then don't come here.  It really is that simple.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Macarios

  • 2077
Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2017, 08:40:38 PM »
Started reading your long post, and first claim already called for correction.

Particles that collide will do it under wide variety of conditions.
Some will hit directly, and maybe bounce. Or even break, depends on speed.
Some will hit from aside, with trajectories under certain angle.
That would be the case in many more cases.
And finally, some will get caught, spiral and "fall" on each other.
Two particles now have bigger mass and easier attract third particle.

Are you trying to say that there's any possibility that it never happens with such vast number of particles?

Then how asteroids hit planets and stay there?
Why they don't bounce off?

EDIT: Try proving one by one thing. Much more people will understand what are you trying to say.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2017, 08:44:54 PM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2017, 01:56:48 AM »
The person who is JRowe needs to possibly read more on physics.....learning what is reality may help to answer his questions and quell his anger. Is he angry because the universe is not working as he would like it?
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27426
Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2017, 02:24:11 AM »
I'd be more than willing to listen to anyone on their theories and question them but some are just too bad tempered.

Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2017, 02:59:12 AM »
The person who is JRowe needs to possibly read more on physics.....learning what is reality may help to answer his questions and quell his anger. Is he angry because the universe is not working as he would like it?
They seem to be angry because no one is accepting their theory or going to their forum to discuss it.

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2017, 03:16:24 AM »
The person who is JRowe needs to possibly read more on physics.....learning what is reality may help to answer his questions and quell his anger. Is he angry because the universe is not working as he would like it?
They seem to be angry because no one is accepting their theory or going to their forum to discuss it.

I think I tracked down his website....something what he calls ‘Dual Earth something or other’.....what does he think the combined scientific community have been doing for the last two hundred years? I read it a couple of times and it appears to call into question all the known laws of physics. It’s all very well putting forward new ideas, but surely they need to be based on something more than wild speculation, to be kind. His ideas on the makeup of the sun are to say the least rather mad. Given what he has presented there does not appear to be any ground for rational debate, no wonder he is angry!
« Last Edit: November 11, 2017, 03:30:08 AM by Nightsky »
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2017, 11:12:08 AM »
JRowe, have you ever read a criticism of your theory and gone, "Oh yeah you are right, I made a mistake there, I'll go modify the theory"
No one is perfect, your theory will have flaws to start with when trying to explain so many aspects of reality.
If you haven't seen any correct criticisms of your theory, that probably means you are judging correct criticisms to be wrong.

Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2017, 12:45:42 PM »
I think I tracked down his website....something what he calls ‘Dual Earth something or other’.....what does he think the combined scientific community have been doing for the last two hundred years? I read it a couple of times and it appears to call into question all the known laws of physics. It’s all very well putting forward new ideas, but surely they need to be based on something more than wild speculation, to be kind. His ideas on the makeup of the sun are to say the least rather mad. Given what he has presented there does not appear to be any ground for rational debate, no wonder he is angry!
The really insane part is that he thinks it all stems from a single assumption instead of numerous (sometimes contradictory) assumptions.

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2017, 01:53:34 PM »
JRowe, have you ever read a criticism of your theory and gone, "Oh yeah you are right, I made a mistake there, I'll go modify the theory"
No one is perfect, your theory will have flaws to start with when trying to explain so many aspects of reality.
If you haven't seen any correct criticisms of your theory, that probably means you are judging correct criticisms to be wrong.

In the real world that’s exactly what happens when you work within a research group. You have an idea and people will look for the gaps and flaws and tear it to shreds if they can. That’s how real science works.
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16669
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2017, 01:55:57 PM »
This place is meant to be a haven for the wayward thinker. The flat earth society is behind you, and we all hope you well.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #12 on: November 11, 2017, 02:01:50 PM »
This place is meant to be a haven for the wayward thinker. The flat earth society is behind you, and we all hope you well.

While wayward thinking or cognitive dissidence has its place the original thinking has to be based on something credible or verifiable, but is that not the inherent problem with FE belief where any ramblings appear to be accepted. Take the alleged dangers with moonlight for example.
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #13 on: November 11, 2017, 02:32:14 PM »
JRowe, have you ever read a criticism of your theory and gone, "Oh yeah you are right, I made a mistake there, I'll go modify the theory"
No one is perfect, your theory will have flaws to start with when trying to explain so many aspects of reality.
If you haven't seen any correct criticisms of your theory, that probably means you are judging correct criticisms to be wrong.

He has actually, a fair few times, look at his early posts; he never used to talk about this DE stuff, and it was a good while before it became what it is now.

*

faded mike

  • 1949
  • new world tattoo drill scar+++++++I'm thinkin flat
Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2017, 05:57:34 AM »
Thanks
very interesting to here ideas outside of mainstream science. I think the refined truth can be found through examining the anomalies and exceptions to the rules.

If Raleigh scattering makes the sunset red, what about the overhead or "to your back" sky during sunset, isn't it blue?
" Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

I am not a druggy

*

faded mike

  • 1949
  • new world tattoo drill scar+++++++I'm thinkin flat
Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2017, 06:17:57 AM »
What were the first particles acted upon by gravity and what is the evidence that gravity acts on the micro scale.
 I once read a book called "Superforce" which sought to unite all the forces. This seems to suit my intuition that it wouldn't be gravity acting on such a small scale, and gravity was the odd man out if I recall correctly, that they were just about to, but hadn't yet unified in a theory.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2017, 03:47:57 PM by faded mike »
" Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

I am not a druggy

Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2017, 12:18:46 PM »
Thanks
very interesting to here ideas outside of mainstream science. I think the refined truth can be found through examining the anomalies and exceptions to the rules.

If Raleigh scattering makes the sunset red, what about the overhead or "to your back" sky during sunset, isn't it blue?
I already explained that in my above post (and otherwise tore her rant to shreds).
Raleigh scattering makes the atmosphere close to the sun red, with more atmosphere making it go for a further distance outwards from the sun.
For the sky facing towards the sun, it is a few degrees the light needs to be scattered to reach you.
For the sky with you facing away from the sun, it needs to scatter 180 degrees.

What were the first particles acted upon by gravity and what is the evidence that gravity acts on the micro scale.
 I once read a book called "Superforce" which sought to unite all the forces. This seems to suit my intuition that it wouldn't be gravity acting on such a small scale, and yet gravity was the odd man out if I recall correctly, that they were just about to, but hadn't yet unified in a theory.
Gravity should act on the micro scale, but be basically nothing compared to the other forces.
But shortly after the big bang, it wouldn't have been microscale.
It would already be quite large and capable of having gravity act.

*

faded mike

  • 1949
  • new world tattoo drill scar+++++++I'm thinkin flat
Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #17 on: November 12, 2017, 03:52:57 PM »
I personally believe that their are many undescribed types of energy at play and that they have probably already solved electrogravitics... where I'm from its all about the oil, we give it away at a small royalty and take the job spinoff as payment to keep the heat on.
" Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

I am not a druggy

*

faded mike

  • 1949
  • new world tattoo drill scar+++++++I'm thinkin flat
Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #18 on: November 12, 2017, 03:55:08 PM »
That's one of the reasons I'm interested in the suppression side of science.
just my two cents
" Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

I am not a druggy

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16669
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #19 on: November 14, 2017, 09:34:32 AM »
This place is meant to be a haven for the wayward thinker. The flat earth society is behind you, and we all hope you well.

While wayward thinking or cognitive dissidence has its place the original thinking has to be based on something credible or verifiable, but is that not the inherent problem with FE belief where any ramblings appear to be accepted. Take the alleged dangers with moonlight for example.
Which are based on something credible and verifiable?
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #20 on: November 14, 2017, 12:28:05 PM »
This place is meant to be a haven for the wayward thinker. The flat earth society is behind you, and we all hope you well.

While wayward thinking or cognitive dissidence has its place the original thinking has to be based on something credible or verifiable, but is that not the inherent problem with FE belief where any ramblings appear to be accepted. Take the alleged dangers with moonlight for example.
Which are based on something credible and verifiable?

Please provide your evidence on this.
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16669
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #21 on: November 14, 2017, 12:53:13 PM »
There are plenty of threads where I have provided citations and studies supporting this view. More than this, it is a fact known by educated men since antiquity.

Here are some commonly known facts that show the moons effect:
The mouse Acomys cahirinus notes a considerable drop in body temperature and activity during the full moon.
Bats tend to reduce their hunting to avoid the harmful polarized light of the moon.
Lions take advantage of the weakness of other animals during the full moon period by increasing their hunting rates.
Human doctor visits increase during the full moon.
Pet Vet visits increase during the full moon.
Corals go into a mating frenzy due to the lack of smaller biological enemies subdued by the full moon.
Some scorpians glow blue in the moonlight due to it attacking certain proteins.
Humans sleep worse in the full moon.
Doodlebugs - dig larger holes to trap prey during full moons showing increased predatory nature
Bats - (vampire bat) decrease their night activity during the full moon to avoid increased predators
Nightjars - increase predator nature during dark nights.
Spincy Mice - the full-moon affects their body temperature.
Primates that are attacked by aye aye are less active during the night and will shift their day schedule to avoid the full moon.

Now to a few studies and references:
Notes on the Folk-lore of the North-east of Scottland "Chapter XXI: Fish hung in moonlight poisonous, Sleeping in moonlight dangerous" "Mairt" killed when the moon increasing"

The most notable evidence, IMO, is that Lyme Disease symptoms become worsened during a full moon. Again you can google this yourself. The reproductive cycle of Borrelia burgdorferi is about 28-30 days - synced up with the full moon every 29.53 days.

Christian Cajochen, Songül Altanay-Ekici, Mirjam Münch, Sylvia Frey, Vera Knoblauch, Anna Wirz-Justice. Evidence that the Lunar Cycle Influences Human Sleep. Current Biology, 2013; DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.06.029

Quote
Professor Piazza Smyth, the Astronomer Royal for Scotland, in his interesting account of a recent scientific expedition made by him to the Peak of Teneriffe, has set at rest the vexed question of the heat of the moonlight. He Bays that his thermometrical instruments were sensibly affected by the moon's rays, even at the lowest of two stations occupied by him at different elevations. In tropical climates meat which is exposed to the moonlight rapidly becomes putrid ; and in the Indies, the negroes who will lie sweltering and unoovered[sic] beneath the full glare of a tropical sun, carefully muffle their heads and faces when exposed to the moonbeams, which they believe will cause swelling and distortion of the features, and sometimes even blindness.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-effects-of-moonlight/


Quote
Data on five aggressive and/or violent human behaviors were examined by computer to determine whether a relationship exists between the lunar syndoic cycle and human aggression. Homicides, suicides, fatal traffic accidents, aggravated assaults and psychiatric emergency room visits occurring in Dade County, Florida all show lunar periodicities.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/641019?dopt=Abstract



Quote
Data on homicides were analyzed by computer to determine whether a relationship exists between the lunar synodic cycle and human emotional disturbance. A statistically significant lunar periodicity was demonstrated for homicides committed in Dade County, Fla., over a 15-year period. A similar, but nonsignificant, periodicity was found for homicides occurring over a 13-year period in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/ajp.129.1.69

Lieber A, Sherin C. Homicides and the lunar cycle: toward a theory of lunar influence on human emotional disturbance. Am J Psychiatry 1972;129(1 July):69-74.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/641019?dopt=Abstract
11.613 cases, 5 Year Period
Assaults occurred more often around the full moon.

Journal of Psychology, vol. 93:81, 1976.
34.318 cases, 1 year period:
Crimes occurred more frequently during the full moon.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11124173?dopt=Abstract
1.621 cases in 3 year period
Animal bites occured more frequently during the full moon.


Quote
Subjective sleep duration varied with the lunar cycle, from 6 h 41 min at full moon to 7 h 00 min at new moon (P < 0.001).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2869.2006.00520.x/full


Quote
Here we show that subjective and objective measures of sleep vary according to lunar phase
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(13)00754-9

Trees and Plants affected by moon adversely:
http://jgp.rupress.org/content/jgp/10/1/41.full.pdf

Historical Evidences
As Shakespeare once warned:
"It is the very error of the moon, She comes more near the earth than she was wont, And makes men mad."

And Hippocrates confirms: "no physician should be entrusted with the treatment of disease who was ignorant of the science of astronomy."

And Pliny the Elder reports that it led to the brain to be 'unnaturally moist' leading to madness.

And, again, we see the truth through Paracelsus
"mania has the following symptoms: frantic behaviour, unreasonableness, constant restlessness and mischievousness. Some patients suffer from it depending on the phases of the moon."

German psychologist Ewald Hering: "with full moon, increasing mania."

« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 01:00:50 PM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #22 on: November 14, 2017, 01:07:10 PM »
This place is meant to be a haven for the wayward thinker.

Not then, as it appears, a haven for haywire wankers?
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

Re: Let's break this down
« Reply #23 on: November 14, 2017, 01:37:03 PM »
There are plenty of threads where I have provided citations and studies supporting this view. More than this, it is a fact known by educated men since antiquity.
You mean a baselessly assumed belief, like blood letting to heal people.

Here are some commonly known facts that show the moons effect:
You need to show it is dangerous, not just that it has some effects.

The mouse Acomys cahirinus notes a considerable drop in body temperature and activity during the full moon.
The sun also results in a considerable drop in activity. They are nocturnal. Have you considered that they aren't as active because it is brighter?

Bats tend to reduce their hunting to avoid the harmful polarized light of the moon.
You mean the light of the moon?
Where is the evidence it is harmful?

Lions take advantage of the weakness of other animals during the full moon period by increasing their hunting rates.
Or they take advantage of the increased light.
If it was going to inflict weakness, why are the lions magically protected?

Human doctor visits increase during the full moon.
Pet Vet visits increase during the full moon.
Citation needed. You also need to show this is because of the moon.

I'll skip the rest and go to your actual evidence (and no the baseless claims aren't evidence)

You seem to just be providing a list of claims which either make no sense or show no actual dangerous effect of the moon.

Christian Cajochen, Songül Altanay-Ekici, Mirjam Münch, Sylvia Frey, Vera Knoblauch, Anna Wirz-Justice. Evidence that the Lunar Cycle Influences Human Sleep. Current Biology, 2013; DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.06.029
No evidence of the dangers of moonlight.
No controlling for if it is just light in general or something special about the moon.
Also carried out over a long period of time, through different seasons which can also have an affect and no statement on how that matches up with lunar phase.
And a small study.

So no conclusive evidence at all.

Meanwhile other studies have indicated there is no correlation, e.g:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.05.017

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/641019?dopt=Abstract
Can't be bothered trying to get to the article. Provide a link to the article itself or the DOI.

Quote
Data on homicides were analyzed by computer to determine whether a relationship exists between the lunar synodic cycle and human emotional disturbance. A statistically significant lunar periodicity was demonstrated for homicides committed in Dade County, Fla., over a 15-year period. A similar, but nonsignificant, periodicity was found for homicides occurring over a 13-year period in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/ajp.129.1.69
Have you bothered looking at their data?
There is no significant correlation.
The 4 data sets presented in their figures show significant variation, both in the data set itself and across the 4.
2 of these have fewer homicides than the average on the full moon, 2 have more.


I think I am done with your "evidence".
Come back when you have something more definitive and not just a bunch of weak pathetic claims.