Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?

  • 181 Replies
  • 2540 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17258
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #150 on: October 12, 2019, 03:41:16 PM »
I scanned through your posts and have found that you guys have once again provided zero sources to contradict the mathematicians who tell us that there are only solutions for goofy scenarios.

Thinking that your opinion on what is possible contradicts the experience of the mathematicians who work on it = Fail.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2019, 04:02:00 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Stash

  • 2768
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #151 on: October 12, 2019, 04:06:26 PM »
I scanned through your posts and have found that you guys have once again provided zero sources to contradict the mathematicians who tell us that there are only solutions for  goofy scenarios.

Thinking that your opinion on what is possible contradicts the experience of the mathematicians who work on it = Fail.

Thinking that you keep diverting from the topic at hand, sunsets, and continue to harp on the irrelevant 3-body red herring = FET Fail

Why not tackle the topic at hand? Can you model an FE sunset that meets observable reality? So far, the answer is no. If you are failing at this, the simplest and most observable phenomenon, I'd actually like to see FET tackle the n-body problem. But in the mean time, let's stick to the topic: Modeling an FE sunset. Can you address this or should we ask someone else?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17258
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #152 on: October 12, 2019, 04:16:54 PM »
We spoke about that already and you refused to debate the explanations provided to you. Now we are talking about how the axioms of RE do not work to provide a sunrise.

*

Stash

  • 2768
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #153 on: October 12, 2019, 04:25:08 PM »
We spoke about that already and you refused to debate the explanations provided to you. Now we are talking about how the axioms of RE do not work to provide a sunrise.

No, you linked to a TFES wiki page regarding perspective and magnification to explain a sunset. Since we are talking about modeling an FE sunset, models were provided showing how it does not work on a flat earth no matter the perspective or magnification claimed. That's called an 'argument': Shown that your explanation does not work. Then you were asked to show a model of how an FE sunset would actually work as you have claimed. You refused to do so and went off into your favorite red herring, n-body, which is irrelevant to the discussion.

So it is you who have refused to debate the explanations. And when one refuses to debate the issue at hand, that is referred to as a 'loss'. So I'm afraid you lose this debate because you are unwilling or can't demonstrate how a simple sunset works on a flat earth.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17258
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #154 on: October 12, 2019, 04:29:03 PM »
We spoke about that already and you refused to debate the explanations provided to you. Now we are talking about how the axioms of RE do not work to provide a sunrise.

No, you linked to a TFES wiki page regarding perspective and magnification to explain a sunset. Since we are talking about modeling an FE sunset, models were provided showing how it does not work on a flat earth no matter the perspective or magnification claimed. That's called an 'argument': Shown that your explanation does not work. Then you were asked to show a model of how an FE sunset would actually work as you have claimed. You refused to do so and went off into your favorite red herring, n-body, which is irrelevant to the discussion.

So it is you who have refused to debate the explanations. And when one refuses to debate the issue at hand, that is referred to as a 'loss'. So I'm afraid you lose this debate because you are unwilling or can't demonstrate how a simple sunset works on a flat earth.

What have you done to disprove the explanations on tfes.org, aside from incredulity?

*

Stash

  • 2768
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #155 on: October 12, 2019, 04:37:18 PM »
We spoke about that already and you refused to debate the explanations provided to you. Now we are talking about how the axioms of RE do not work to provide a sunrise.

No, you linked to a TFES wiki page regarding perspective and magnification to explain a sunset. Since we are talking about modeling an FE sunset, models were provided showing how it does not work on a flat earth no matter the perspective or magnification claimed. That's called an 'argument': Shown that your explanation does not work. Then you were asked to show a model of how an FE sunset would actually work as you have claimed. You refused to do so and went off into your favorite red herring, n-body, which is irrelevant to the discussion.

So it is you who have refused to debate the explanations. And when one refuses to debate the issue at hand, that is referred to as a 'loss'. So I'm afraid you lose this debate because you are unwilling or can't demonstrate how a simple sunset works on a flat earth.

What have you done to disprove the explanations on tfes.org, aside from incredulity?

At a minimum, provided several graphics and simulations showing how perspective can't get the Sun down to, let alone 'below', the horizon on a flat earth. Take the example of a sunset observed from Nebraska. Where is the sun at noon on the flat earth? Take the direction and distance and show how perspective can get it near/below the horizon for the observer in Nebraska. So far, you can't. That is called an FE Sunset Fail.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17258
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #156 on: October 12, 2019, 04:47:59 PM »
So, you provided a graphic which "proved" that the perspective lines in reality actually intersect an infinite distance away and not a finite distance away. Must be some amazing graphic if you were able to prove that.

Let's see... https://wiki.tfes.org/Sunrise_and_Sunset

Looks to me that the perspective explanation from ENAG isn't even the main explanation on tfes.org.

Now that you have proven the true nature of perspective with a "graphic" you should proceed to show that rays of light travel in perfectly straight lines over thousands of miles.

Maybe you can provide us with an illustration of a straight line for that one?  ;)

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #157 on: October 12, 2019, 05:04:19 PM »
I scanned through your posts and have found that you guys have once again provided zero sources to contradict the mathematicians who tell us that there are only solutions for goofy scenarios.
Meanwhile I have read your posts entirely and have found that you have once again provided zero sources to indicate in any way that three body systems cannot exist.

Again, do you think not having a simple solution means that something can't exist?
Please answer the question, it is quite a simple one that one would need to be quite dishonest to avoid.

We spoke about that already and you refused to debate the explanations provided to you. Now we are talking about how the axioms of RE do not work to provide a sunrise.
You provided no explanations for sunsets.
Instead you baselessly asserted that the sun was somehow magnified. I asked you for an explanation and you completely ignored it.

Do you have an explanation for how the sun and moon are magically magnified?

*

Stash

  • 2768
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #158 on: October 12, 2019, 05:12:21 PM »
So, you provided a graphic which "proved" that the perspective lines in reality actually intersect an infinite distance away and not a finite distance away. Must be some amazing graphic if you were able to prove that.

Let's see... https://wiki.tfes.org/Sunrise_and_Sunset

Looks to me that the perspective explanation from ENAG isn't even the main explanation on tfes.org.

Now that you have proven the true nature of perspective with a "graphic" you should proceed to show that rays of light travel in perfectly straight lines over thousands of miles.

Maybe you can provide us with an illustration of a straight line for that one?  ;)

I don't recall ever using the word 'proved'. 'Shown' is more like it. Now it is up to you to 'show' how a sunset works on a flat earth that is observable reality. There is no indication which mechanism employed is the "main" one as there are several. Why several, I don't know. Which is it? Or is the setting sun 'unknown' to FET?

Bottomline, is that through perspective, no one can get the setting FE sun down to under approx 800 miles or so above the horizon.

Maybe you can provide us with an illustration of how the sun sets on FE with a level of accuracy and reality. 

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17258
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #159 on: October 12, 2019, 06:04:55 PM »
Quote
I don't recall ever using the word 'proved'. 'Shown' is more like it.

Oh. So you are saying that you haven't proven anything and this is mainly about you asserting that if you assume one thing that you can conclude another?

*

Stash

  • 2768
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #160 on: October 12, 2019, 06:08:23 PM »
Quote
I don't recall ever using the word 'proved'. 'Shown' is more like it.

Oh. So you are saying that you haven't proven anything and this is mainly about you asserting that if you assume one thing that you can conclude another?

Stop with the semantics and address the questions. Dodging is not a good look for you nor for FET. Unless you want to concede a sunset (and moon set) is unknown to FET.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #161 on: October 12, 2019, 06:23:07 PM »
Well back to the op because tomB is taking us on a trip here.

If the gifs are wrong.
Then what is the correct fe model for a sun/ moon set?
What is it?
Some one should be able to model it and give us a cgi render becuase - as per tomB - if it cant be modeled it must not exist

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17258
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #162 on: October 12, 2019, 06:30:29 PM »
Quote
I don't recall ever using the word 'proved'. 'Shown' is more like it.

Oh. So you are saying that you haven't proven anything and this is mainly about you asserting that if you assume one thing that you can conclude another?

Stop with the semantics and address the questions. Dodging is not a good look for you nor for FET. Unless you want to concede a sunset (and moon set) is unknown to FET.

Well, you are saying that you haven't proven anything, only that if you assume one thing you can conclude another. You should just lead with that.

"If I assume this, FE doesn't work!!!"

Yes, that looks more honest to me.

*

Stash

  • 2768
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #163 on: October 12, 2019, 06:47:52 PM »
Quote
I don't recall ever using the word 'proved'. 'Shown' is more like it.

Oh. So you are saying that you haven't proven anything and this is mainly about you asserting that if you assume one thing that you can conclude another?

Stop with the semantics and address the questions. Dodging is not a good look for you nor for FET. Unless you want to concede a sunset (and moon set) is unknown to FET.

Well, you are saying that you haven't proven anything, only that if you assume one thing you can conclude another. You should just lead with that.

"If I assume this, FE doesn't work!!!"

Yes, that looks more honest to me.

If I assume what is in the wiki regarding the height of the FE sun is true and what it says about sunsets as an explanation then yes, I canít get it work on a flat earth as observed in reality.
Now why donít you show with a model how it can work.
Stop dodging. Unless you want concede the subject is unknown to FET.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17258
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #164 on: October 12, 2019, 07:42:24 PM »
Seems like you can debate yourself at this point. You need to prove your assumptions and axioms in order to disprove FE.

Obviously.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38268
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #165 on: October 12, 2019, 08:15:29 PM »
Seems like you can debate yourself at this point. You need to prove your assumptions and axioms in order to disprove FE.

Obviously.
Don't FE'ers have the same burden to prove their assumptions and axioms in order to prove FE?
« Last Edit: October 12, 2019, 08:17:17 PM by markjo »
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

  • 2768
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #166 on: October 12, 2019, 10:02:13 PM »
Seems like you can debate yourself at this point. You need to prove your assumptions and axioms in order to disprove FE.

Obviously.

Wow, Iím really kind of stunned. All this dancing around the issue. You wonít even get near addressing the FE sunset model in a real world environment. You literally canít model it, can you? A real FE sunset. You canít do it.
I guess you concede. A sunset is unknown to FET. Fair enough.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #167 on: October 13, 2019, 01:49:40 AM »
Seems like you can debate yourself at this point. You need to prove your assumptions and axioms in order to disprove FE.

Obviously.

He did.
You didnt.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #168 on: October 13, 2019, 01:52:27 AM »
Quote
I don't recall ever using the word 'proved'. 'Shown' is more like it.

Oh. So you are saying that you haven't proven anything and this is mainly about you asserting that if you assume one thing that you can conclude another?

Stop with the semantics and address the questions. Dodging is not a good look for you nor for FET. Unless you want to concede a sunset (and moon set) is unknown to FET.

Well, you are saying that you haven't proven anything, only that if you assume one thing you can conclude another. You should just lead with that.

"If I assume this, FE doesn't work!!!"

Yes, that looks more honest to me.

If tomB assumes 3body is an issue and ignores all refuting points, helio doesnt work!.
Yes That looks pretty dishonest.

*

Stash

  • 2768
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #169 on: October 13, 2019, 02:09:37 AM »
Quote
I don't recall ever using the word 'proved'. 'Shown' is more like it.

Oh. So you are saying that you haven't proven anything and this is mainly about you asserting that if you assume one thing that you can conclude another?

Stop with the semantics and address the questions. Dodging is not a good look for you nor for FET. Unless you want to concede a sunset (and moon set) is unknown to FET.

Well, you are saying that you haven't proven anything, only that if you assume one thing you can conclude another. You should just lead with that.

"If I assume this, FE doesn't work!!!"

Yes, that looks more honest to me.

If tomB assumes 3body is an issue and ignores all refuting points, helio doesnt work!.
Yes That looks pretty dishonest.

Not to mention that a simple sunset is a 2 body issue - One that he has refused to even address, let alone defend. Curious. FET has no sunset (moonset) model. Curiouser and curiouser.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #170 on: October 13, 2019, 07:04:34 AM »

Not to mention that a simple sunset is a 2 body issue - One that he has refused to even address, let alone defend. Curious. FET has no sunset (moonset) model. Curiouser and curiouser.

Yeah, but even that is getting ahead of the scope of the original objection, which is a simple case of finding the angle above the horizon for a given height and distance.

The Flat Earth idea for the sun runs into enormous problems up against literally the simplest equation in trigonometry.

Curious to see just how much bigger a logical hole Tom will dig into with the shear scale of double standards on display.




*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38268
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #171 on: October 13, 2019, 08:19:52 AM »
Quote
I don't recall ever using the word 'proved'. 'Shown' is more like it.

Oh. So you are saying that you haven't proven anything and this is mainly about you asserting that if you assume one thing that you can conclude another?

Stop with the semantics and address the questions. Dodging is not a good look for you nor for FET. Unless you want to concede a sunset (and moon set) is unknown to FET.

Well, you are saying that you haven't proven anything, only that if you assume one thing you can conclude another. You should just lead with that.

"If I assume this, FE doesn't work!!!"

Yes, that looks more honest to me.

If tomB assumes 3body is an issue and ignores all refuting points, helio doesnt work!.
Yes That looks pretty dishonest.

Not to mention that a simple sunset is a 2 body issue - One that he has refused to even address, let alone defend. Curious. FET has no sunset (moonset) model. Curiouser and curiouser.
I don't know if it even needs to be a 2 body issue.  An RE sunset could just as easily modeled by having a stationary sun and earth.  The only movement that needs to be considered is the earth's rotation.
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 #172 on: October 14, 2019, 07:54:07 AM »
I originally posted the swirling solar system gif with this comment:

ďAt 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?Ē

I never said it was an accurate model of anything. Youíre pretty much a jackass for taking it out of context and trying to complain about it. Well done.
So, you admit to posting inaccurate crap here while claiming to post real answers?

And somehow I am the jackass and I am the one who took your out of context contribution and I am posting that out of context...

I don't think so...I think the title of jackass is firmly in your grasp for perpetuity.

Question, can you read? Like I said above, I originally posted the swirling solar system gif asking the question if it would represent something like UA pushing the plane if you swapped it for the sun. You plucked that out of context and created a whole post pretending that I said something like, "Here's a dead accurate, mathematically proven representation of the RE solar system..." Which I never did. And you're still trying to make the claim that I did. I was asking a question about UA dumbass.

So you are making a highly inaccurate claim about something that I never said or did which yes, makes you a jackass.

As for the other 2 graphics they are based on the wiki 3000 mile high FE sun. I gave you the code for one. And for the static graphic, the 'data' is in it; pixel count represents miles and scale.

So your lame post has been answered several times now. If you would actually like to contribute something useful, now that you have the 'inputs' and your question has been answered, why don't you show us how an FE sun actually sets.
Yeah, I can read.

Yeah, you posted the gif of the mythical vortex solar system and then claim it somehow represents UA with ZERO inputs offered in support.

You were called out on your BS and in response, you call me the jackass...

GFY and take a hike BS artist...
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38268
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #173 on: October 14, 2019, 10:14:54 AM »
Yeah, you posted the gif of the mythical vortex solar system and then claim it somehow represents UA with ZERO inputs offered in support.
As I recall, he said along the lines of: if you look at it from a certain perspective, it's kinda, sorta what an upwardly accelerating FE universe might look like.  He never said that it was meant to be an accurate FE model.  You know, just like every other FE model ever presented by an FE'er.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2019, 10:17:05 AM by markjo »
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

  • 2768
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #174 on: October 14, 2019, 10:23:32 AM »
I originally posted the swirling solar system gif with this comment:

ďAt 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?Ē

I never said it was an accurate model of anything. Youíre pretty much a jackass for taking it out of context and trying to complain about it. Well done.
So, you admit to posting inaccurate crap here while claiming to post real answers?

And somehow I am the jackass and I am the one who took your out of context contribution and I am posting that out of context...

I don't think so...I think the title of jackass is firmly in your grasp for perpetuity.

Question, can you read? Like I said above, I originally posted the swirling solar system gif asking the question if it would represent something like UA pushing the plane if you swapped it for the sun. You plucked that out of context and created a whole post pretending that I said something like, "Here's a dead accurate, mathematically proven representation of the RE solar system..." Which I never did. And you're still trying to make the claim that I did. I was asking a question about UA dumbass.

So you are making a highly inaccurate claim about something that I never said or did which yes, makes you a jackass.

As for the other 2 graphics they are based on the wiki 3000 mile high FE sun. I gave you the code for one. And for the static graphic, the 'data' is in it; pixel count represents miles and scale.

So your lame post has been answered several times now. If you would actually like to contribute something useful, now that you have the 'inputs' and your question has been answered, why don't you show us how an FE sun actually sets.
Yeah, I can read.

Yeah, you posted the gif of the mythical vortex solar system and then claim it somehow represents UA with ZERO inputs offered in support.

You were called out on your BS and in response, you call me the jackass...

GFY and take a hike BS artist...

Always a pleasure reading your zero argument and zero insight posts. And no, you apparently still can't read. As mentioned at least 3 times now, I posted that gif with a question, not a 'claim':

ďAt 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?Ē

See that glyph at the end? That is what is known as a 'question mark', also known as interrogation point, query, or eroteme. Punctuation may be confusing to you, sorry for making you wade through the mire of such a complex sentence structure.

Maybe you would actually like to offer up an argument on the topic, like modeling how your sun sets. Unlikely is my guess considering that we're six pages in and you're still the same jackass you were on page 1.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #175 on: October 14, 2019, 10:42:46 AM »
As lackless has failed to note in all his poor posts, the intelligent people have corrected any misconception to the re, while himself and tomB have both continued to hand wave and provide zero correction to their theory.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #176 on: October 15, 2019, 05:57:20 AM »
Yeah, you posted the gif of the mythical vortex solar system and then claim it somehow represents UA with ZERO inputs offered in support.
As I recall, he said along the lines of: if you look at it from a certain perspective, it's kinda, sorta what an upwardly accelerating FE universe might look like.  He never said that it was meant to be an accurate FE model.  You know, just like every other FE model ever presented by an FE'er.
Stash wrote: "ďAt the end of the day, wouldn't a scriptural interpretation of UA simply be this..."

Even when his own words are right in front of you, you choose the Adam Schiff approach and substitute your own...

Get out penguin.
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #177 on: October 15, 2019, 06:08:28 AM »
Yeah, you posted the gif of the mythical vortex solar system and then claim it somehow represents UA with ZERO inputs offered in support.
As I recall, he said along the lines of: if you look at it from a certain perspective, it's kinda, sorta what an upwardly accelerating FE universe might look like.  He never said that it was meant to be an accurate FE model.  You know, just like every other FE model ever presented by an FE'er.
Stash wrote: "ďAt the end of the day, wouldn't a scriptural interpretation of UA simply be this..."

Even when his own words are right in front of you, you choose the Adam Schiff approach and substitute your own...

Get out penguin.

Great.
Stash is wrong.
Why not then provide the REAL model?

*

Stash

  • 2768
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #178 on: October 15, 2019, 10:56:27 AM »
Yeah, you posted the gif of the mythical vortex solar system and then claim it somehow represents UA with ZERO inputs offered in support.
As I recall, he said along the lines of: if you look at it from a certain perspective, it's kinda, sorta what an upwardly accelerating FE universe might look like.  He never said that it was meant to be an accurate FE model.  You know, just like every other FE model ever presented by an FE'er.
Stash wrote: "ďAt the end of the day, wouldn't a scriptural interpretation of UA simply be this..."

Even when his own words are right in front of you, you choose the Adam Schiff approach and substitute your own...

Get out penguin.

Again, over and over again, you never add anything, just subtract. Is that your schtick in real life too? If so, very sad. For the umpteenth time, I wrote, "At the end of the day, wouldn't a scriptural interpretation of UA...?" It's called a question which I shouldn't have to explain to you what that is, yet again.

Do you have a problem with questions? What don't you get?

Now, as I and others have pointed out, why don't you offer up a model instead of just complaining. Or would you like to further embarrass yourself by repeatedly failing to understand the written word and basic punctuation? We'll start simple; what is the real world model for a setting sun on a flat earth?

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #179 on: October 16, 2019, 03:44:54 AM »
Yeah, you posted the gif of the mythical vortex solar system and then claim it somehow represents UA with ZERO inputs offered in support.
As I recall, he said along the lines of: if you look at it from a certain perspective, it's kinda, sorta what an upwardly accelerating FE universe might look like.  He never said that it was meant to be an accurate FE model.  You know, just like every other FE model ever presented by an FE'er.
Stash wrote: "ďAt the end of the day, wouldn't a scriptural interpretation of UA simply be this..."

Even when his own words are right in front of you, you choose the Adam Schiff approach and substitute your own...

Get out penguin.

Again, over and over again, you never add anything, just subtract. Is that your schtick in real life too? If so, very sad. For the umpteenth time, I wrote, "At the end of the day, wouldn't a scriptural interpretation of UA...?" It's called a question which I shouldn't have to explain to you what that is, yet again.

Do you have a problem with questions? What don't you get?

Now, as I and others have pointed out, why don't you offer up a model instead of just complaining. Or would you like to further embarrass yourself by repeatedly failing to understand the written word and basic punctuation? We'll start simple; what is the real world model for a setting sun on a flat earth?
Hey, when you call something "scriptural," that means you ascribe a level of validity to the model.

Which, as an RE adherent, you don't.

So, the point of my OP is to point out your disingenuous asshattery and inability to support said asshattery with any sort of valid reference.

You, who don't believe in what you call a mythical place, presume to dictate to the rest of the world what said mythical place would look like...

The real world model of FE is right in front of you, each and everyday.

Now, get to cross referencing your pixels to miles and give everybody here the full breakdown...

I am sick and tired of asking you to do the work you already should have done when you offered up this BS at the forum.
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.