How do things fall?

Feel free to present that when we actually have a conversation about earth rotation.

For you to just dismiss it then? No.
You either agree that appeal to authorities are logical fallacies which have no place in any debate, or you simply accept whatever the authorities say.

The entire FE movement is built upon outright rejection of these scientific authorities.
So if you want to play the authority, you lose, and Earth isn't flat.

Right or wrong, I always provide sources to support a position, and you typically do not provide anything at all, making you the loser of the debate.

Your "source" is typically just a link to your wiki, which is no better than you just claiming it.
Try providing a primary source in this thread.

Try to provide the actual evidence for your position which can then be discussed, rather than simply dismissing those who don't agree with you.

You have applied attempted name calling, argument of unrelated points; tactics of an unfettered loser.

No, that would be you.
You have appealed to authorities and effectively resorted to ad-homs by dismissing us as "not authorities".

The conversation wasn't originally about doppler shift, it was about why things fall.
Rather than discussing that, you instead try to go off on a tangent about the redshift of quasars, which were mistaken assumed to be near much closer galaxies.


I can predict that you will continue to argue for why you should not need to provide evidence rather than actually providing evidence.

Are we at the point where Tom abandons this thread only to use the exact same argument in the next one?

"Selective appeal to authority" should be a new logically fallacy. We can call it The Bishop Fallacy since he likes having things named after himself.

Elsewhere in the universe I asked a few more related questions to UA that seems to fit being brought up here.  If UA is the source of gravity.  If it is pushing everything upward, how do things not fall off the side of Mars? 

If UA isn't real and instead the Earth is an infinite flat plane, that could account for gravity, but what keeps it a plane and not crush into an, infinite ball? Why haven't we explored this endless expanse?

There are so many conflicting theories here it's hard to keep track, is there anyone who has a coherent FE framework they believe in and stick to?

If UA isn't real and instead the Earth is an infinite flat plane, that could account for gravity, but what keeps it a plane and not crush into an, infinite ball? Why haven't we explored this endless expanse?

An infinite plane is stable, at least hypothetically.
If an irregularity got large enough then it might start to cause problems.

This is because for an infinite plane, there are no edge effects, and the force is just pushing down, which would cause the plane to self level until structures are below the gravitational height limit (for their material properties).

an, infinite ball?

and how would that look?

Quote from: JJA on April 12, 2021, 05:49:46 AM

If UA isn't real and instead the Earth is an infinite flat plane, that could account for gravity, but what keeps it a plane and not crush into an, infinite ball? Why haven't we explored this endless expanse?

An infinite plane is stable, at least hypothetically.
If an irregularity got large enough then it might start to cause problems.

This is because for an infinite plane, there are no edge effects, and the force is just pushing down, which would cause the plane to self level until structures are below the gravitational height limit (for their material properties).

You learn something new every day.

I wonder if human-scale activities could create a disturbance big enough to collapse it.  Dig a deep enough pit, build enough tall structures.  Guess it depends on how thick and dense the ground is.

There are a number of points and citations against the rotation theory. Just because you don't believe it does not make it still a theory.  It just makes you look ignorant.

The rotation of the earth has long since been removed from the theory realm to the established fact realm.

Oops part of my answer ended up in the quote. But you get the idea

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 11, 2021, 07:22:13 AM

There are a number of points and citations against the rotation theory. Just because you don't believe it does not make it still a theory.  It just makes you look ignorant.

The rotation of the earth has long since been removed from the theory realm to the established fact realm.

You know it's normally the anti-science people who completely misunderstand the meaning of the term 'scientific theory,' kudos for originality.

Quote from: Platonius21 on April 13, 2021, 03:32:52 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 11, 2021, 07:22:13 AM

There are a number of points and citations against the rotation theory. Just because you don't believe it does not make it still a theory.  It just makes you look ignorant.

The rotation of the earth has long since been removed from the theory realm to the established fact realm.

You know it's normally the anti-science people who completely misunderstand the meaning of the term 'scientific theory,' kudos for originality.

In his defense, it has so much supporting evidence and has never been proven false, yeah never, that most people consider it fact and forget theory.  But kudos to you for twisting it into him "completely" misunderstanding. 

Quote from: PosteriorMotive on April 13, 2021, 03:49:52 PM

Quote from: Platonius21 on April 13, 2021, 03:32:52 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 11, 2021, 07:22:13 AM

There are a number of points and citations against the rotation theory. Just because you don't believe it does not make it still a theory.  It just makes you look ignorant.

The rotation of the earth has long since been removed from the theory realm to the established fact realm.

You know it's normally the anti-science people who completely misunderstand the meaning of the term 'scientific theory,' kudos for originality.

In his defense, it has so much supporting evidence and has never been proven false, yeah never, that most people consider it fact and forget theory.  But kudos to you for twisting it into him "completely" misunderstanding.

"so much supporting evidence and has never been proven false." So... a scientific theory then?

My point is that some theories, when tested, prove to be true.  At that point what was a theory becomes fact. I will take "flat earth theory" and "round earth theory" as example.

In the past, before anyone knew the shape of the earth, you could reasonably postulate a theory that the earth is flat or that it is round. And people were trying to determine which.  But today we know the answer. We have photos from space that prove the earth is round.

It's no longer a theory that the earth is round; it's a fact.  And the theory that the earth is flat is disproved. To go on and on trying to make sense of a theory that the earth is flat, making up stuff like circling suns and universal acceleration and on and on, when it is known the earth is not flat, is just a circle jerk.

Oh, to be sure, one can have a theory about how a flat earth might behave if there were such a thing.  But to theorize that our actual earth is flat is just like theorizing people can fly by flapping their arms.  It isn't and you can't.

And that's a fact.

Quote from: Mikey T. on April 14, 2021, 04:33:43 AM

Quote from: PosteriorMotive on April 13, 2021, 03:49:52 PM

Quote from: Platonius21 on April 13, 2021, 03:32:52 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 11, 2021, 07:22:13 AM

There are a number of points and citations against the rotation theory. Just because you don't believe it does not make it still a theory.  It just makes you look ignorant.

The rotation of the earth has long since been removed from the theory realm to the established fact realm.

You know it's normally the anti-science people who completely misunderstand the meaning of the term 'scientific theory,' kudos for originality.

In his defense, it has so much supporting evidence and has never been proven false, yeah never, that most people consider it fact and forget theory.  But kudos to you for twisting it into him "completely" misunderstanding.

"so much supporting evidence and has never been proven false." So... a scientific theory then?

Way to miss the point...  but hey, keep your kudos

My point is that some theories, when tested, prove to be true.  At that point what was a theory becomes fact.

His point is that that never happens.
With science, nothing is ever elevated to fact.
Instead it goes from an untested hypothesis to either a supported theory or a refuted hypothesis.

This is why there is no FE theory. It has nothing to support it.
It would be better worded as FE wild speculation and rejection of reality.

It is not a theory in the scientific use of the word at all.

This is a simple case of Tom misusing science to pretend people are just speculating.

Treating 'scientific theory' as lesser is one of the reasons pseudoscience like this gets propagated at all. Insisting that something has to be above scientific theory is the mentality that gets us anti-vaxxers, creationists, climate change deniers and, yes, flat earthers. How often have you heard '___ is just a theory!'

You aren't defending science by leaving it at the door.
'Scientific theory' is the best thing science can say about any concept. Inventing a concept above that in order to elevate something to win internet points is unscientific trash. Defending the notion that something being a scientific theory is not good enough is downright dangerous.

Defending the notion that something being a scientific theory is not good enough is downright dangerous.

Unless, of course, that theory has been disproved.  In which case that "theory" is just internet trash.

Semantics are fun troll ammunition.

Quote from: PosteriorMotive on April 14, 2021, 05:17:25 PM

Defending the notion that something being a scientific theory is not good enough is downright dangerous.

Unless, of course, that theory has been disproved.  In which case that "theory" is just internet trash.

In which case it isn't a scientific theory at all.

The point is, a lot of objection to scientific theories come from people misunderstanding and thinking that that means it isn't supported by evidence or else it would be elevated to a fact.

Treating 'scientific theory' as lesser is one of the reasons pseudoscience like this gets propagated at all. Insisting that something has to be above scientific theory is the mentality that gets us anti-vaxxers, creationists, climate change deniers and, yes, flat earthers. How often have you heard '___ is just a theory!'

You aren't defending science by leaving it at the door.
'Scientific theory' is the best thing science can say about any concept. Inventing a concept above that in order to elevate something to win internet points is unscientific trash. Defending the notion that something being a scientific theory is not good enough is downright dangerous.

So your existence is scientific theory?

Quote from: PosteriorMotive on April 14, 2021, 05:17:25 PM

Treating 'scientific theory' as lesser is one of the reasons pseudoscience like this gets propagated at all. Insisting that something has to be above scientific theory is the mentality that gets us anti-vaxxers, creationists, climate change deniers and, yes, flat earthers. How often have you heard '___ is just a theory!'

You aren't defending science by leaving it at the door.
'Scientific theory' is the best thing science can say about any concept. Inventing a concept above that in order to elevate something to win internet points is unscientific trash. Defending the notion that something being a scientific theory is not good enough is downright dangerous.

So your existence is scientific theory?

It's a claim that can be tested and (in my humble opinion) does seem to pass the test.

I'd say so. What else would you call it?