Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?

  • 181 Replies
  • 5422 Views
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #60 on: October 09, 2019, 08:14:33 AM »
Pg 2 is dedicated solely to the moon gif.
Piss off.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #61 on: October 09, 2019, 08:34:37 AM »
But yes, FE certainly does win out in regards to whether we observe the Earth rotating into the sun or the light of the sun setting. I've never seen the earth rotate into the sun. I have, however, seen the light of the sun set. Reality supports FE directly.
At best that would support a model of a stationary earth and the sun rotating around it (as in above and below, not around in a circle above it).
But, as always, this is something you don't understand, or are pretending not to.
It's like waking up on a train going at a consistent speed, seeing the countryside going by and concluding you are stationary and it's the countryside which is moving past.
When we're talking about relative motion it's impossible to know from that observation alone what is moving.
A sun circling above a flat earth would never set and would keep changing size. Every object changes angular size with distance, including other celestial bodies like other planets and the moon. And it would never set, you'd have line of sight to it at all times.
Reality supports the sun being at a constant distance during the day (angular size) and it going out of our line of sight at night (it sets).
These observations can be explained by a globe earth rotating.
I've not seen a flat earth model which can explain these simple observations, you have to invoke some made up rule of perspective to explain sunset and some made up rule of magnification which only applies to the sun to explain the consistent size. The fact you have to make these things up, things which you have no evidence for, shows how weak your model is. And that's without all the issues of what mechanism keeps the sun's circle above the earth keep changing diameter through the year, the fact you can't explain 24 hour sun in the antarctic circle with a monopole model etc etc. You have no coherent FE model, but I think you know that.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #62 on: October 09, 2019, 09:46:52 AM »
Quote
These observations can be explained by a globe earth rotating.

Quote
The fact you have to make these things up, things which you have no evidence for, shows how weak your model is.

Error. Error. First, you say that it can be "explained by a globe earth rotating" and admit that you cannot prove that it is caused by a globe earth rotating, but that's the truth, just because.

Then, you have the gall to claim that we are making things up and reject all FE explanations? Sounds like illogical reasoning bordering on religion.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39099
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #63 on: October 09, 2019, 09:55:33 AM »
Another is the BS solar system gallavanting about the cosmos...

In order to portray that accurately, a computer (which uses math, you ass) requires the math from Newton/Einstein/Keplar...
It's already been pointed out that the gif is not a completely accurate representation of the solar system "gallavanting" through the galaxy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/08/30/our-motion-through-space-isnt-a-vortex-but-something-far-more-interesting/#1df57dc17ec2

Even the person who created the animation admitted that he isn't a scientist.
https://www.djsadhu.com/research/solar-system-2-0-science-friction/
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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39099
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #64 on: October 09, 2019, 10:00:06 AM »
Quote
These observations can be explained by a globe earth rotating.

Quote
The fact you have to make these things up, things which you have no evidence for, shows how weak your model is.

Error. Error. First, you say that it can be "explained by a globe earth rotating" and admit that you cannot prove that it is caused by a globe earth rotating, but that's the truth, just because.

Then, you have the gall to claim that we are making things up and reject all FE explanations? Sounds like illogical reasoning bordering on religion.
It's trivially easy for the rotating earth to explain a sunset.  It's the flat earth explanations that get complicated.  Which explanation do you think that Occam would prefer?
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.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #65 on: October 09, 2019, 10:08:01 AM »
Quote
These observations can be explained by a globe earth rotating.

Quote
The fact you have to make these things up, things which you have no evidence for, shows how weak your model is.

Error. Error. First, you say that it can be "explained by a globe earth rotating" and admit that you cannot prove that it is caused by a globe earth rotating, but that's the truth, just because.

Then, you have the gall to claim that we are making things up and reject all FE explanations? Sounds like illogical reasoning bordering on religion.

Classic tomB mishmashing quotes and taking them out of context.
Huzzah.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #66 on: October 09, 2019, 10:13:26 AM »
Quote
These observations can be explained by a globe earth rotating.

Quote
The fact you have to make these things up, things which you have no evidence for, shows how weak your model is.

Error. Error. First, you say that it can be "explained by a globe earth rotating" and admit that you cannot prove that it is caused by a globe earth rotating, but that's the truth, just because.

Then, you have the gall to claim that we are making things up and reject all FE explanations? Sounds like illogical reasoning bordering on religion.
It's trivially easy for the rotating earth to explain a sunset.  It's the flat earth explanations that get complicated.  Which explanation do you think that Occam would prefer?

The situation can get impossibly complex for RE. One could say that since the Sun-Earth-Moon system cannot exist due to the Three Body Problem, the claim that such a system where the rotating Sun, Earth and Moon are objects in space held together with gravity is a falsity.

If we want to ignore that and focus on just the possibility of the rotation of the earth being able to explain observations, that is also questionable on assessment of the details. The sun is seen to curve in the sky in different directions over the course of the year, which is attributed to the celestial sphere; a geometrical curiosity in astronomy which assumes that the celestial bodies are attached to a sphere above the observer whereupon bodies rest at different angles to each other and where straight lines become curved.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere
« Last Edit: October 09, 2019, 10:16:02 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #67 on: October 09, 2019, 10:34:47 AM »
Quote
These observations can be explained by a globe earth rotating.

Quote
The fact you have to make these things up, things which you have no evidence for, shows how weak your model is.

Error. Error. First, you say that it can be "explained by a globe earth rotating" and admit that you cannot prove that it is caused by a globe earth rotating, but that's the truth, just because.

Then, you have the gall to claim that we are making things up and reject all FE explanations? Sounds like illogical reasoning bordering on religion.
It's trivially easy for the rotating earth to explain a sunset.  It's the flat earth explanations that get complicated.  Which explanation do you think that Occam would prefer?

The situation can get impossibly complex for RE. One could say that since the Sun-Earth-Moon system cannot exist due to the Three Body Problem, the claim that such a system where the rotating Sun, Earth and Moon are objects in space held together with gravity is a falsity.

If we want to ignore that and focus on just the possibility of the rotation of the earth being able to explain observations, that is also questionable on assessment of the details. The sun is seen to curve in the sky in different directions over the course of the year, which is attributed to the celestial sphere; a geometrical curiosity in astronomy which assumes that the celestial bodies are attached to a sphere above the observer whereupon bodies rest at different angles to each other and where straight lines become curved.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere

You don't  need to know anything about gravity to understand how a sunset works on RE. That was well know before Newton was born.

In  astronomy celestial bodies are not attached to a sphere. We observers are attached to a rotating  sphere called "the earth". From our rotating point of view, it looks as if the sky is rotating above us, but we know for fact that we are the ones rotating.
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #68 on: October 09, 2019, 10:39:16 AM »
Quote
You don't  need to know anything about gravity to understand how a sunset works on RE. That was well know before Newton was born.

If you want to simulate the system you do. If you just want to draw cartoons for a book you do not.

In  astronomy celestial bodies are not attached to a sphere.

According to Professor Myers, Professor Newcomb, and Johannes Kepler, there is a celestial sphere. From the article:

Quote
Astronomers, for whom the celestial sphere model is a basic tool for mapping the stars, are not surprised by the apparently curved path of light from the sun to the moon because they know that straight lines in 3-D object space are transformed to great-circle arcs on the imaginary celestial sphere.

Quote
This form consists of long streamers or pillars, which extend in the direction of the dipping magnetic needle. They look curved or arched, like the celestial sphere on which they are projected, but they are really straight.

Quote
Kepler writes, 'But our vision has no surface like that of a painting on which it may look at the picture of the hemisphere but only that surface of the sky above in which it sees comets, and it imagines a sphere by the natural instinct of vision. But if a picture of things is extended in straight lines into a concave sphere, and if our vision is in the center of this, the traces of those things will not be straight lines, but, by Hercules, curved ones'
« Last Edit: October 09, 2019, 10:53:40 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39099
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #69 on: October 09, 2019, 10:54:41 AM »
Quote
These observations can be explained by a globe earth rotating.

Quote
The fact you have to make these things up, things which you have no evidence for, shows how weak your model is.

Error. Error. First, you say that it can be "explained by a globe earth rotating" and admit that you cannot prove that it is caused by a globe earth rotating, but that's the truth, just because.

Then, you have the gall to claim that we are making things up and reject all FE explanations? Sounds like illogical reasoning bordering on religion.
It's trivially easy for the rotating earth to explain a sunset.  It's the flat earth explanations that get complicated.  Which explanation do you think that Occam would prefer?

The situation can get impossibly complex for RE. One could say that since the Sun-Earth-Moon system cannot exist due to the Three Body Problem, the claim that such a system where the rotating Sun, Earth and Moon are objects in space held together with gravity is a falsity.
One would be a fool for saying such a silly thing.  What makes you think that the sun-earth-moon system gives a fetid pair of dingo's kidneys about the 3 body problem?  The n-body problem is a man-made mathematical construct used to describe the motions of bodies.  It is not nature's blueprint for building a solar system.

If we want to ignore that and focus on just the possibility of the rotation of the earth being able to explain observations, that is also questionable on assessment of the details. The sun is seen to curve in the sky in different directions over the course of the year, which is attributed to the celestial sphere; a geometrical curiosity in astronomy which assumes that the celestial bodies are attached to a sphere above the observer whereupon bodies rest at different angles to each other and where straight lines become curved.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere
The celestial sphere is an outdated concept, but it's still handy and works far better at explaining the motions of the celestial bodies than just about any FE model I've seen.
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.

*

Stash

  • 3832
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #70 on: October 09, 2019, 10:55:27 AM »
Here's the code, feel free to examine for yourself:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6I_PNJJWXxlUXlNYThQV0hPcWc/view

That is simple.
I will check it out.
Funny thing about the swirling solar system gif you call BS is that it could represent the UA version of FE. If you just put a flat earth where the sun is and have the sun and the planets rotating above the earth plane, it all being pushed like in the gif would be what UA looks like.
'No' seems to be your standard rebuttal. With refutation backed by no evidence. Well done.
Well, here you are clearly wrong.

You see, you posted this supposed model of the solar system hurtling through space with all the planets dutifully in tow...

Offered nothing in support of the BS you posted...

Evidently failing to realize your well-diapered penguin friend, JackBlack, Rab, and all your other RE/heliocentrist friends know the truth about the gif of the solar system you posted...it is absolute rubbish... makes zero use of Newton/Einstein/Keplar in its modeling...

LOL!!!


I originally posted the swirling solar system gif with this comment:

“At the end of the day, wouldn't a scriptural interpretation of UA simply be this, except a flat earth with the Sun and all of the other celestial bodies revolving above it instead of swirling around the sun?”

I never said it was an accurate model of anything. You’re pretty much a jackass for taking it out of context and trying to complain about it. Well done.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #71 on: October 09, 2019, 11:10:33 AM »
Quote
You don't  need to know anything about gravity to understand how a sunset works on RE. That was well know before Newton was born.

If you want to simulate the system you do. If you just want to draw cartoons for a book you do not.

So every time FE makes a claim without providing the mathematical formulas for physical laws behind it we can assume it's just cartoons for a book, noted.

Quote
Astronomers, for whom the celestial sphere model is a basic tool for mapping the stars, are not surprised by the apparently curved path of light from the sun to the moon because they know that straight lines in 3-D object space are transformed to great-circle arcs on the imaginary celestial sphere.

This form consists of long streamers or pillars, which extend in the direction of the dipping magnetic needle. They look curved or arched, like the celestial sphere on which they are projected, but they are really straight.

Kepler writes, 'But our vision has no surface like that of a painting on which it may look at the picture of the hemisphere but only that surface of the sky above in which it sees comets, and it imagines a sphere by the natural instinct of vision. But if a picture of things is extended in straight lines into a concave sphere, and if our vision is in the center of this, the traces of those things will not be straight lines, but, by Hercules, curved ones'

Maybe Kepler thought that the celestial sphere was a real thing, I wouldn't know. In modern astronomy the celestial sphere is practical tool. It's just a model to map the sky from our point of view on earth. That's quite clear even in your first  quotation, you are basically refuting yourself:

Quote
Astronomers, for whom the celestial sphere model is a basic tool for mapping the stars, are not surprised by the apparently curved path of light from the sun to the moon because they know that straight lines in 3-D object space are transformed to great-circle arcs on the imaginary celestial sphere.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2019, 11:20:02 AM by kopfverderber »
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #72 on: October 09, 2019, 11:50:31 AM »
So RE has an imaginary sphere around it where straight lines become curves? Okay...

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #73 on: October 09, 2019, 12:22:45 PM »
Quote
These observations can be explained by a globe earth rotating.

Quote
The fact you have to make these things up, things which you have no evidence for, shows how weak your model is.

Error. Error. First, you say that it can be "explained by a globe earth rotating" and admit that you cannot prove that it is caused by a globe earth rotating, but that's the truth, just because.

Then, you have the gall to claim that we are making things up and reject all FE explanations? Sounds like illogical reasoning bordering on religion.
It's trivially easy for the rotating earth to explain a sunset.  It's the flat earth explanations that get complicated.  Which explanation do you think that Occam would prefer?

The situation can get impossibly complex for RE. One could say that since the Sun-Earth-Moon system cannot exist due to the Three Body Problem, the claim that such a system where the rotating Sun, Earth and Moon are objects in space held together with gravity is a falsity.

If we want to ignore that and focus on just the possibility of the rotation of the earth being able to explain observations, that is also questionable on assessment of the details. The sun is seen to curve in the sky in different directions over the course of the year, which is attributed to the celestial sphere; a geometrical curiosity in astronomy which assumes that the celestial bodies are attached to a sphere above the observer whereupon bodies rest at different angles to each other and where straight lines become curved.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere

Oh hoo.
Cant exist?
By that lpgic does tomB refute that double pendulums also dont and cant exist because their motion cant be predicted with math?
Really?

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #74 on: October 09, 2019, 12:24:55 PM »
So RE has an imaginary sphere around it where straight lines become curves? Okay...

If you live on a sphere and you want to map the sky around that sphere how would you do it?  For practical purposes you want to know the position and paths of celestial objects relative to your position, so you project the sky on an imaginary sphere and that allows you to use a coordinate system to know where each object is.

When you are an astronomer on earth, you want to know where to look to find a particular object in the sky. The relevant information is the object's position and path relative to your position.

It's not that difficult to understand, I'm quite surprised that you are asking this.
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #75 on: October 09, 2019, 12:27:39 PM »
Oh hoo.
Cant exist?
By that lpgic does tomB refute that double pendulums also dont and cant exist because their motion cant be predicted with math?
Really?

It's more that it falls apart than it can't be predicted. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

If you live on a sphere and you want to map the sky around that sphere how would you do it?  For practical purposes you want to know the position and paths of celestial objects relative to your position, so you project the sky on an imaginary sphere and that allows you to use a coordinate system to know where each object is.

When you are an astronomer on earth, you want to know where to look to find a particular object in the sky. The relevant information is the object's position and path relative to your position.

It's not that difficult to understand, I'm quite surprised that you are asking this.

I would recommend looking into the Moon Tilt Illusion problem and the Celestial Sphere. The Celestial Sphere argument says that the celestial bodies are pasted on a celestial sphere at different angles, and that straight rays of light become curved on it.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion

https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere

Numerous phenomena act as if the sky is a planetarium dome where straight lines become curved.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2019, 12:29:53 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #76 on: October 09, 2019, 12:55:32 PM »
Oh hoo.
Cant exist?
By that lpgic does tomB refute that double pendulums also dont and cant exist because their motion cant be predicted with math?
Really?

It's more that it falls apart than it can't be predicted. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

If you live on a sphere and you want to map the sky around that sphere how would you do it?  For practical purposes you want to know the position and paths of celestial objects relative to your position, so you project the sky on an imaginary sphere and that allows you to use a coordinate system to know where each object is.

When you are an astronomer on earth, you want to know where to look to find a particular object in the sky. The relevant information is the object's position and path relative to your position.

It's not that difficult to understand, I'm quite surprised that you are asking this.

I would recommend looking into the Moon Tilt Illusion problem and the Celestial Sphere. The Celestial Sphere argument says that the celestial bodies are pasted on a celestial sphere at different angles, and that straight rays of light become curved on it.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion

https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere

Numerous phenomena act as if the sky is a planetarium dome where straight lines become curved.

Thank you for the tips, but if I want to learn about an astronomy topic a flat earth wiki would be the last place where I would look.
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #77 on: October 09, 2019, 12:59:28 PM »
Thank you for the tips, but if I want to learn about an astronomy topic a flat earth wiki would be the last place where I would look.

I see that we have another refusal to debate and abandonment of discussion. Unless you guys are refuting and contradicting all points in the content you see then you must be conceding the discussion.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #78 on: October 09, 2019, 01:38:48 PM »
First, you say that it can be "explained by a globe earth rotating" and admit that you cannot prove that it is caused by a globe earth rotating, but that's the truth, just because.
Where did anyone admit that's the thruth just because?
It is the truth because that is what all the evidence points to.
Technically science doesn't deal with proof, but for laypeople, it has certainly be proven that Earth rotates and that it is roughly a globe.

Then, you have the gall to claim that we are making things up and reject all FE explanations?
But you have no explanations.
You appeal to magical magnification with no actual explanation of it.

One could say that since the Sun-Earth-Moon system cannot exist due to the Three Body Problem
And one would be wrong, as pointed out to you repeatedly.
The three body problem doesn't mean it cannot exist.
It means there likely isn't a simple solution.

If you wish to claim it cannot exist you will need more than just appealing to the three body problem.

The sun is seen to curve in the sky in different directions over the course of the year, which is attributed to the celestial sphere; a geometrical curiosity in astronomy which assumes that the celestial bodies are attached to a sphere above the observer whereupon bodies rest at different angles to each other and where straight lines become curved.
No, it doesn't assume the celestial bodies are attached to a sphere. It projects the bodies onto a sphere.
The simple reality is that the sun is in a different celestial hemisphere due to its large (180 degrees) parallax.
If you use an equatorial mount telescope you can follow the sun over the course of a day as Earth rotates.

But this only woks for a RE, or the tiny FE of the ancients. It doesn't work for the FE which instead needs a celestial disk where the stars are on a disk above Earth.

And like always your wiki blatantly misrepresents science.
The apparent warping is due to the projection of a spherical space based upon 2 angles onto a flat surface.
Regardless of how you do this, you will have distortion. However, you can make any particular straight line be straight, as you can choose what regions get distorted and what projection to use.

In  astronomy celestial bodies are not attached to a sphere.
According to Professor Myers, Professor Newcomb, and Johannes Kepler, there is a celestial sphere. From the article:
Quote
imaginary celestial sphere.
Quote
the celestial sphere on which they are projected
Quote
it imagines a sphere
This sure indicates they think the celestial sphere is imaginary, a modelling tool, rather than being a real, physical thing, and they certainly aren't suggesting that the celestial bodies are attached to them.

It's more that it falls apart than it can't be predicted.
No, the three body problem is that it cannot be solved by a simple solution, not that it falls apart.

I see that we have another refusal to debate and abandonment of discussion.
Yes, that does appear to be what you have done.
This was originally a discussion on the sun setting and how that doesn't match a FE at all. Instead you abandoned that and started trying to discuss the celestial sphere and the three body problem.

Perhaps we can get back to the discussion at hand.
What is the explanation for the magnification of the sun and moon occurs?

Numerous phenomena act as if the sky is a planetarium dome where straight lines become curved.
No, Numerous phenomena act as if you view the world with 2 angles, you know, as vision works.
This is not limited to the sky.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2019, 01:44:42 PM by JackBlack »

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #79 on: October 09, 2019, 02:04:34 PM »
Oh hoo.
Cant exist?
By that lpgic does tomB refute that double pendulums also dont and cant exist because their motion cant be predicted with math?
Really?


It's more that it falls apart than it can't be predicted. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem



As a means of predicting orbits - 2body works fine.
But because 3body (using the current math of a complex dynamic system) can't be calculated therefore means it can't exist?

So TomB admits that double pendulums don't exist?
That means NASA not only fakes space but they fake double pendulums as well.
See all the fakery in all it's cgi glory.
Can you spot the fakery?

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=double+pendulum



*

Stash

  • 3832
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #80 on: October 09, 2019, 03:02:34 PM »
Thank you for the tips, but if I want to learn about an astronomy topic a flat earth wiki would be the last place where I would look.

I see that we have another refusal to debate and abandonment of discussion. Unless you guys are refuting and contradicting all points in the content you see then you must be conceding the discussion.

Strangely, the only discussion abandonment is yours because you won't answer a couple of questions and prattle off into irrelevant tangents rather than directly addressing the issues:

- Where is the sun hovering over at noon on FE for an observer in Nebraska watching the sun dip below the horizon at their sunset?
- Is there an actual accurate simulation that shows the 3000 mile high FE sun getting near the horizon at sunset that matches what 8 billion of us can observe everyday?

If you folks don't like the simulations of a flat earth that RE comes up with then defend FE with your own.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #81 on: October 09, 2019, 03:47:54 PM »
Thank you for the tips, but if I want to learn about an astronomy topic a flat earth wiki would be the last place where I would look.

I see that we have another refusal to debate and abandonment of discussion. Unless you guys are refuting and contradicting all points in the content you see then you must be conceding the discussion.

Strangely, the only discussion abandonment is yours because you won't answer a couple of questions and prattle off into irrelevant tangents rather than directly addressing the issues:

- Where is the sun hovering over at noon on FE for an observer in Nebraska watching the sun dip below the horizon at their sunset?
- Is there an actual accurate simulation that shows the 3000 mile high FE sun getting near the horizon at sunset that matches what 8 billion of us can observe everyday?

If you folks don't like the simulations of a flat earth that RE comes up with then defend FE with your own.


The (sun) continuum transfunctioner is a very mysterious and powerful device and it's mystery is exceeded only by it's power.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #82 on: October 09, 2019, 05:54:45 PM »
Where did anyone admit that's the thruth just because?
It is the truth because that is what all the evidence points to.
Technically science doesn't deal with proof, but for laypeople, it has certainly be proven that Earth rotates and that it is roughly a globe.

A statement without evidence. Discarded.

Quote
And one would be wrong, as pointed out to you repeatedly.
The three body problem doesn't mean it cannot exist.
It means there likely isn't a simple solution.

No sources for your statements. Discarded.

Quote
If you wish to claim it cannot exist you will need more than just appealing to the three body problem.

Sources were provided, of physicists stating directly that the sun-earth-moon system cannot stay together. You provided nothing except your own false opinion of what the three body problem is. Your opinion is discarded. That's not how evidence works.

Quote
No, it doesn't assume the celestial bodies are attached to a sphere. It projects the bodies onto a sphere.

Bodies are "projected onto a sphere" in RE. Nice pseudoscience. Now prove that there is a sphere where straight lines become curved, as is stated about the celestial sphere.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2019, 06:04:09 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #83 on: October 09, 2019, 06:02:10 PM »
Oh hoo.
Cant exist?
By that lpgic does tomB refute that double pendulums also dont and cant exist because their motion cant be predicted with math?
Really?


It's more that it falls apart than it can't be predicted. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem



As a means of predicting orbits - 2body works fine.
But because 3body (using the current math of a complex dynamic system) can't be calculated therefore means it can't exist?

So TomB admits that double pendulums don't exist?
That means NASA not only fakes space but they fake double pendulums as well.
See all the fakery in all it's cgi glory.
Can you spot the fakery?

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=double+pendulum

Again,"this is what I think the three body problem is" is a terrible counter-argument. No one cares what you "think." That doesn't matter. Your opinion is discarded in debate. You must prove that what you "think" is also what the mathematicians who work on it think.

You will need to provide a source that the three body problem scenarios with uneven masses can stay together, in order to contradict the sources which say that it cannot: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
« Last Edit: October 09, 2019, 06:25:31 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Stash

  • 3832
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #84 on: October 09, 2019, 06:19:38 PM »
Oh hoo.
Cant exist?
By that lpgic does tomB refute that double pendulums also dont and cant exist because their motion cant be predicted with math?
Really?


It's more that it falls apart than it can't be predicted. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem



As a means of predicting orbits - 2body works fine.
But because 3body (using the current math of a complex dynamic system) can't be calculated therefore means it can't exist?

So TomB admits that double pendulums don't exist?
That means NASA not only fakes space but they fake double pendulums as well.
See all the fakery in all it's cgi glory.
Can you spot the fakery?

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=double+pendulum

Again,"this is what I think the three body problem is" is a terrible counter-argument. No one cares what you "think." That doesn't matter. Your opinion is discarded in debate. You must prove that what you "think" is also what the mathematicians who work on it think.

You will need to provide a source that the three body problem scenarios with uneven masses can stay together, in order to contradict the sources which say that it cannot: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

What does an FE sunset have to do with three body problem? Has FE solved the n-body problem?
We're talking how FE can get the sun down to the horizon and have it disappear. So far there's no model or simulation that can demonstrate how that happens in FET. Can you tell us where the sun is at any given time on FE and where it is when it sets for an observer in Nebraska?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39099
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #85 on: October 09, 2019, 06:26:19 PM »
So RE has an imaginary sphere around it where straight lines become curves? Okay...
Some FE models feature a celestial dome too, so don't get smug.
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.

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 913
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #86 on: October 09, 2019, 06:39:34 PM »
Oh hoo.
Cant exist?
By that lpgic does tomB refute that double pendulums also dont and cant exist because their motion cant be predicted with math?
Really?


It's more that it falls apart than it can't be predicted. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem



As a means of predicting orbits - 2body works fine.
But because 3body (using the current math of a complex dynamic system) can't be calculated therefore means it can't exist?

So TomB admits that double pendulums don't exist?
That means NASA not only fakes space but they fake double pendulums as well.
See all the fakery in all it's cgi glory.
Can you spot the fakery?

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=double+pendulum

Again,"this is what I think the three body problem is" is a terrible counter-argument. No one cares what you "think." That doesn't matter. Your opinion is discarded in debate. You must prove that what you "think" is also what the mathematicians who work on it think.

You will need to provide a source that the three body problem scenarios with uneven masses can stay together, in order to contradict the sources which say that it cannot: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Why do you think mathematicians continue to try to solve the three body problem? It's because they can see it working. They aren't trying to prove the Sun, Moon and Earth are in a gravitational system. They are trying to reduce what is actually happening in the solar system to an equation. Edmund Halley didn't approach Isaac Newton for help proving the planets revolve around the Sun. He went to Newton for help to work out the equations to predict their motion.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2019, 06:43:11 PM by EvolvedMantisShrimp »
Nullius in Verba

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39099
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #87 on: October 09, 2019, 06:43:15 PM »
Sources were provided, of physicists stating directly that the sun-earth-moon system cannot stay together.
Tom, it's already known that the sun-earth-moon system will not stay together forever because the moon is moving away from the earth at the rate of about one inch per year.  Using this fact, an n-body model run backwards led to the impactor theory of the moon's origin.

You provided nothing except your own false opinion of what the three body problem is. Your opinion is discarded. That's not how evidence works.
Where have you provided any evidence that celestial system are bound by the rules of the n-body problem?
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.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #88 on: October 09, 2019, 09:06:51 PM »
Oh hoo.
Cant exist?
By that lpgic does tomB refute that double pendulums also dont and cant exist because their motion cant be predicted with math?
Really?


It's more that it falls apart than it can't be predicted. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem



As a means of predicting orbits - 2body works fine.
But because 3body (using the current math of a complex dynamic system) can't be calculated therefore means it can't exist?

So TomB admits that double pendulums don't exist?
That means NASA not only fakes space but they fake double pendulums as well.
See all the fakery in all it's cgi glory.
Can you spot the fakery?

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=double+pendulum

Again,"this is what I think the three body problem is" is a terrible counter-argument. No one cares what you "think." That doesn't matter. Your opinion is discarded in debate. You must prove that what you "think" is also what the mathematicians who work on it think.

You will need to provide a source that the three body problem scenarios with uneven masses can stay together, in order to contradict the sources which say that it cannot: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

1st paragraph is nonsense dodging and shows you have no counter arguement to the fact a double pendulum does in fact exist despite your opinion that "if it cant be calculated, it cant exist".

2nd paragraph
The sources say their current models result in the bodies fkying appart.
Therefore the math in the model has an incorrect or unknown cpnsoderation.

Amazingly this is why newton gives way to GR.
Yet newton on a basic level wprks,the special cases that require a GR to fine tune.

You however, do not have a most basic land measuremnet resulting in a map, cant figure out how a compass works, cant "reasonably" explain a sunset (which is the op) and relies on mass conspiracy to negate all space travel.
Gtfo.
If i could provide a formula for 3body system i would have a nobel in math.

Being able to calculate it does not negate the fact you can see it in action.
Again - do double pendulums exist?

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #89 on: October 09, 2019, 11:59:14 PM »
A statement without evidence.
Yes, that's right. Your claim was a statement without evidence.
In fact, pretty much everything you say is.
Yet when that is pointed out, you just dismiss it.

Sources were provided, of physicists stating directly that the sun-earth-moon system cannot stay together.
You linked to a conspiracy website which has been shown to blatantly misrepresent science and the sources its quote.
But perhaps more importantly, it directly contradicts your claim and shows that three body situations cannot exist as it states there are solutions.
As it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, I see no point in continuing to discuss it.

Bodies are "projected onto a sphere" in RE. Nice pseudoscience. Now prove that there is a sphere where straight lines become curved, as is stated about the celestial sphere.
You don't seem to understand at all.
The projection is not part of reality and you seem to be the only one pretending it is.
I also clearly explained that the straight lines becoming curved is a result of mapping this sphere onto a flat surface.

Now how about you do as several people have asked and address the topic at hand?
How does FE explain the sun setting?
You have appealed to the sun magically being magnified, without providing any explanation of what is causing this magnification.
Do you have an explanation?
« Last Edit: October 10, 2019, 12:01:16 AM by JackBlack »