What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?

  • 366 Replies
  • 59004 Views
What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« on: May 17, 2008, 06:51:50 AM »
If you could name one thing, then that would give us something testable.
FE'ers, however, seem scared of such things as 'evidence'.

Its just that so far, your entire model seems to consist of 'fudges' to get it to fit reality (e.g. the shadow object, celestial gears, tidal wobbling, the ice wall, the conspiracy, even UA itself), with no explanation of how these things actually came to exist.
Does FET make ONE prediction on its own?

?

drizzlefrizzle

  • 167
  • Rubiks Cube Personal Best Time: 1 Min 38 Sec
Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2008, 06:53:57 AM »
no, its hard to be right when you're wrong, you see...
"my mind goes in  and  out  of focus"
The spaces between in and and and and and out are, unfortunately, incorrect.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2008, 07:37:43 AM »
Does FET make ONE prediction on its own?
It predicts that gravity is not a force. 


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42324
Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2008, 07:41:15 AM »
Does FET make ONE prediction on its own?
It predicts that gravity is not a force. 
I thought that RE predicted that too.  ???
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.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2008, 07:42:45 AM »
So?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65034
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2008, 07:43:08 AM »
FE predicts that stupid people will ask the same stupid questions over and over again.
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2008, 08:09:42 AM »
So?

So...it's not a prediction on its own, which was the original request. Come on Engy we expect better from you.

In answer to the OP, FET makes precisely zero predictions of it's own. There's nothing which is unexplained in RET that can be explained in full by FET. As for the reverse of that? Well how long have you got? Lol.

?

Youre avin a larf

  • 644
  • Official RE Conspiracy Spokesman
Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2008, 08:26:12 AM »
OK, the thing is if FE is not highly defined and mathematically modeled then anything it does predict is only predicted in a very vague way with plenty of wriggle room.

Some of the things it does predict:
1/ The sun moving in planar circuit will cause a shadow pattern:



In other words the prediction would be that the sun would move through an angle less than 15 per hour, in the morning and evening and more than 15 per hour around midday.
The angles would also be quite different at different latitudes.

2/ Circular 'spotlight' solar illumination thus:



The day would be 6 hours max and shorter than that near the poles.

To name an easy two.
I know round when I see it.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2008, 08:29:09 AM »
So...it's not a prediction on its own
Why not?  Its process is entirely separate from the RE's.  Therefore, it is a prediction on its own.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2008, 08:35:09 AM »
Negative.

Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2008, 08:37:03 AM »
No, I'll agree, it is a prediction. I'd completely forgotten about that.
Unfortunately,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/1np/ch03/ch03.html (scroll down to coloured map)

Well, I guess that's answered my question. FE theory predicts free-fall acceleration will be constant all over the Earth, which it isn't.
Thus (and I'm just going by standard scientific practise here), the theory needs to be refined or discarded.

?

The Terror

  • 1776
  • Flat Earth Propane Tank
Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2008, 08:40:57 AM »
The whole dark energy universal acceleration thing doesn't work anyway.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2008, 08:57:17 AM »
FE predicts I could conceivably see the sun and lunar eclipse at the same time. RE leaves this impossible as the sun would have to be below the horizon to cause earth's shadow to "rise" to meet the moon. Since it is observed (selenehelion), RE is impossible. 
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Youre avin a larf

  • 644
  • Official RE Conspiracy Spokesman
Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2008, 09:08:42 AM »
FE predicts I could conceivably see the sun and lunar eclipse at the same time.

Er, no it doesn't. It doesn't predict a lunar eclipse at all.
It doesn't even explain it with any credibility.
It also predicts neither phases of the moon nor solar eclipses.

I know round when I see it.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2008, 09:21:07 AM »
Nice way to gloss over the failures of RE model to explain these events.

In what way does FE fail to predict the possibility of seeing the sun and lunar eclipse at the same time?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Youre avin a larf

  • 644
  • Official RE Conspiracy Spokesman
Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #15 on: May 17, 2008, 09:29:36 AM »
Nice way to gloss over the failures of RE model to explain these events.

In what way does FE fail to predict the possibility of seeing the sun and lunar eclipse at the same time?


First you have to explain how does FE predicts seeing a lunar eclipse at all?
I know round when I see it.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17819
Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #16 on: May 17, 2008, 10:10:25 AM »
FE predicts the following:

Water is not convex

Rowbotham's experiments have been conducted many times in the 150 year history of the Flat Earth Society. Just check out the link in my signature. A woman named Lady Bount was among the first to provided photographic evidence for a Flat Earth:

    "The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in the zetetic method hired a photographer, Mr Cifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should bemore than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."

From "100 Proofs the earth is not a globe" by William Carpenter:

    36. If we take a journey down the Chesapeake Bay, by night, we shall see the "light" exhibited at Sharpe's Island for an hour before the steamer gets to it. We may take up a position on the deck so that the rail of the vessel's side will be in a line with the "light" and in the line of sight; and we shall find that in the whole journey the light will won't vary in the slightest degree in its apparent elevation. But, say that a distance of thirteen miles has been traversed, the astronomers' theory of "curvature" demands a difference (one way or the other!) in the apparent elevation of the light, of 112 feet 8 inches! Since, however, there is not a difference of 100 hair's breadths, we have a plain proof that the water of the Chesapeake Bay is not curved, which is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

The North Star can be seen beyond the equator

The North Star can actually be seen at over 20 degrees beyond the equator before disappearing to perspective, an impossibility on a Round Earth. This is a proof for a Flat Earth. Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham reports observing the North Star at 23.5 degrees beyond the equator. William Carpenter includes this well known discrepancy as proof number 71 in a book entitled "A hundred proofs the earth is not a globe."

    71. The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

FE predicts the time, magnitude, and duration of a Lunar Eclipse

Read the Lunar Eclipse Chapter in Earth Not a Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham for equations on how we can predict the Lunar Eclipse under the FE model.

If the earth were a globe then lighthouses should be seen, at a certain distance, to be below the horizon

From "100 Proofs the earth is not a globe" by William Carpenter:

    5. The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at distances at which, according to the scale of the supposed "curvature" given by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some cases, down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according. to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no "curvature," on the surface of the sea - "the level of the sea,"- ridiculous though it is to be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe.

A half sunken ship can be restored through the aid of a telescope

This is an impossibility on the Round Earth model. If the ship's hull were really behind a hill of water and not just lost due to perspective merging the sea and hull then it would be impossible to restore the ship's hull with the aid of a telescope.

Distances between latitudes should be farther apart in the South

From "100 Proofs the earth is not a globe" by William Carpenter:

    16. If the, Earth were a globe, the distance round its surface at, say, 45 "degrees" south latitude, could not possibly be any greater than it is at the same latitude north; but, since it is found by navigators to be twice the distance -- to say the least of it -- or, double the distance it ought to be according to the globular theory, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe

If the earth were a globe the horizon line would not be at eye level

From "100 Proofs the earth is not a globe" by William Carpenter:

    30. If the Earth were a globe, an observer who should ascend above its surface would have to took downwards at the horizon (if it be possible to conceive of a horizon at all under such circumstances) even as astronomical diagrams indicate that angles - varying from ten to nearly fifty degrees below the "horizontal" line of sight! (It is just as absurd as it would be to be taught that when we look at a man full in the face we are looking down at his feet!) But, as no observer in the clouds, or upon any eminence on the earth, has ever had to do so, it follows that the diagrams spoken of are imaginary and false; that the theory which requires such things to prop it up is equally airy and untrue; and that we have a substantial proof that Earth is not a globe.

If the earth was flat one's eyesight would be limited to a sphere of vision due to perspective

From "100 Proofs the earth is not a globe" by William Carpenter:

    32. It is often said that, if the Earth were flat, we could see all over it! This is the result of ignorance. If we stand on the level surface a plain or a prairie, and take notice, we shall find that the horizon is formed at about ten miles all around us: that is, the ground appears to rise up until, at that distance, it seems on a level with the eye-line or line of sight. Consequently, objects no higher than we stand - say, six feet - and which are at that distance (ten miles), have reached the "vanishing point," and are beyond the sphere of our unaided vision. This is the reason why the hull of a ship disappears (in going away from us) before the sails; and, instead of there being about it the faintest shadow of evidence of the, Earth's rotundity, it is a clear proof that Earth is not a globe.

If the earth was a globe surveyors would make allowance for the earth's curvature

From "100 Proofs the earth is not a globe" by William Carpenter:

    3. Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.

If the earth were a globe long rivers would be seen to drop

    4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.

If the earth were a globe Foucault's Pendulum would be consistent

    73. Astronomers have made experiments with pendulums which have been suspended from the interior of high buildings, and have exulted over the idea of being able to prove the rotation of the Earth on its "axis," by the varying direction taken by the pendulum over a prepared table underneath - asserting that the table moved round under the pendulum, instead of the pendulum shifting and oscillating in different directions over the table! But, since it has been found that, as often as not, the pendulum went round the wrong way for the "rotation" theory, chagrin has taken the place of exultation, and we have a proof of the failure of astronomers in their efforts to substantiate their theory, and, therefore, a proof that Earth is not a globe.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2008, 10:26:51 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42324
Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #17 on: May 17, 2008, 10:13:19 AM »
FE predicts I could conceivably see the sun and lunar eclipse at the same time. RE leaves this impossible as the sun would have to be below the horizon to cause earth's shadow to "rise" to meet the moon. Since it is observed (selenehelion), RE is impossible. 

No, RE does not leave selenehelion impossible.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse
Although the Moon is in the Earth's geometrical shadow, the Sun and the eclipsed Moon can appear in the sky at the same time because the refraction of light through the Earth's atmosphere causes objects near the horizon to appear higher in the sky than their true geometric position.

FE abuses refraction far more than FE does.
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
  • 42324
Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #18 on: May 17, 2008, 10:21:15 AM »
FE predicts the following:

Water is not convex

Rowbotham's experiments have been conducted many times in the 150 year history of the Flat Earth Society. Just check out the link in my signature. A woman named Lady Bount was among the first to provided photographic evidence for a Flat Earth:

Any chance that you can provide a copy of this picture?

Quote
A half sunken ship can be restored through the aid of a telescope

This is an impossibility on the Round Earth model. If the ship's hull were really behind a hill of water and not just lost due to perspective merging the sea and hull then it would be impossible to restore the ship's hull with the aid of a telescope.

Any chance that you will ever tell us exactly how powerful a telescope needs to be to restore the "sunken" part of the ship?


Quote
Distances between latitudes should be farther apart in the South

From Proof 16 of 100 Proofs:

    16. If the, Earth were a globe, the distance round its surface at, say, 45 "degrees" south latitude, could not possibly be any greater than it is at the same latitude north; but, since it is found by navigators to be twice the distance -- to say the least of it -- or, double the distance it ought to be according to the globular theory, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe

Any chance that you will can provide a detailed FE map demonstrating this?

I say that the odds of all three are exactly zero.  Care to prove me wrong Tom?
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: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #19 on: May 17, 2008, 10:23:48 AM »
Tom's posts, as beautiful as they are, should always be ignored.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42324
Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #20 on: May 17, 2008, 10:24:59 AM »
Tom's posts, as beautiful as they are, should always be ignored.

I know, but he seems to put so much effort into them.
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: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #21 on: May 17, 2008, 10:30:30 AM »
You'd think so but all his large posts like that one are mostly made up of copied and pasted generic paragraphs that he probably keeps in a text file on his desktop.

Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #22 on: May 17, 2008, 10:41:12 AM »
Quote
Water is not convex

The Bedford level experiments have been done many times since Rowbotham's day, and almost all have shown the surface of water to be curved. One or two experiments may have suffered from interesting atmospheric conditions (read: temperature inversions) but these don't change the result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Quote
The North Star can be seen beyond the equator

You would expect the North star to be visible near the equator. It would just be closer to the horizon. However, in FE theory you would expect it to be visible from everywhere.

Quote
If the earth were a globe then lighthouses should be seen, at a certain distance, to be below the horizon

Lighthouses do indeed disappear below the horizon. This is why I can't see lighthouses in Norway from my vantage point in Durham (North of England).

Quote
A half sunken ship can be restored through the aid of a telescope

As people have said, you have provided no proof of this. However, the claim that sunken ojects can be restored by going higher was documented here:

Quote
If the earth were a globe the horizon line would not be at eye level

As is indeed the case, as anyone who has climbed to the top of a high mountain can attest to. It is not very noticeable (only a few degrees), but it is indeed true.

Quote
If the earth was flat one's eyesight would be limited to a sphere of vision due to perspective

Based on wonky understandings of perspective. This is a thread on its own, so I won't go into it here.

Quote
If the earth was a globe surveyors would make allowance for the earth's curvature

The designers of radio networks, for example, have to take into account the curvature of the Earth. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a739256594~db=all~order=page

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #23 on: May 17, 2008, 11:55:56 AM »
If you could name one thing, then that would give us something testable.
FE'ers, however, seem scared of such things as 'evidence'.

Its just that so far, your entire model seems to consist of 'fudges' to get it to fit reality (e.g. the shadow object, celestial gears, tidal wobbling, the ice wall, the conspiracy, even UA itself), with no explanation of how these things actually came to exist.
Does FET make ONE prediction on its own?

What predictions do RET make ON ITS OWN?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Youre avin a larf

  • 644
  • Official RE Conspiracy Spokesman
Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #24 on: May 17, 2008, 11:57:20 AM »
FE predicts the following:

16. If the, Earth were a globe, the distance round its surface at, say, 45 "degrees" south latitude, could not possibly be any greater than it is at the same latitude north; but, since it is found by navigators to be twice the distance -- to say the least of it -- or, double the distance it ought to be according to the globular theory, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe


Funny that, because now that we have navigation systems that are orders of magnitude better than available over 100 years ago we find that actually the reverse is true.

I note that by your own criteria this is not evidence. Quoting from a very old book is not first hand evidence.
When I show flight times for a flight that shows this prediction to be false you resort to questioning the first-handedness of the evidence. - Lame.

Your response to the flight time disparity appears to be to claim the flight is either a fiction or everyone is in on the conspiracy. Really, is that the best you can do?

I'm still waiting to hear why it is relevant whether or not I have traveled on this flight.
I know round when I see it.

Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #25 on: May 17, 2008, 11:58:26 AM »
If you could name one thing, then that would give us something testable.
FE'ers, however, seem scared of such things as 'evidence'.

Its just that so far, your entire model seems to consist of 'fudges' to get it to fit reality (e.g. the shadow object, celestial gears, tidal wobbling, the ice wall, the conspiracy, even UA itself), with no explanation of how these things actually came to exist.
Does FET make ONE prediction on its own?

What predictions do RET make ON ITS OWN?

Wait, how long have you been here? And you've never come across ANY of the RE exclusive predictions and observations?

?

Youre avin a larf

  • 644
  • Official RE Conspiracy Spokesman
Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #26 on: May 17, 2008, 12:00:47 PM »
If you could name one thing, then that would give us something testable.
FE'ers, however, seem scared of such things as 'evidence'.

Its just that so far, your entire model seems to consist of 'fudges' to get it to fit reality (e.g. the shadow object, celestial gears, tidal wobbling, the ice wall, the conspiracy, even UA itself), with no explanation of how these things actually came to exist.
Does FET make ONE prediction on its own?

What predictions do RET make ON ITS OWN?

How about:
The sun moves through 15 in the sky every hour, everywhere on earth.
The rotation of the stars is opposite in direction in the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere.
The shortest route from Australia to South America is over the south pole.

To name just three.
I know round when I see it.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #27 on: May 17, 2008, 12:03:31 PM »


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17819
Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #28 on: May 17, 2008, 12:05:54 PM »
Quote
The sun moves through 15 in the sky every hour, everywhere on earth.

What does the sun moving at a pace every hour tell us about the shape of the earth?

Quote
The rotation of the stars is opposite in direction in the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere.

What does a whirling celestial star system over some areas of the southern lands tell us about the shape of the earth?

Quote
The shortest route from Australia to South America is over the south pole.

Who traveled from Australia to South America through the South Pole?

Re: What does FE *PREDICT* that RE doesn't?
« Reply #29 on: May 17, 2008, 12:09:06 PM »
Negative.
Wow, amazing, Kas. 

Not really just my way of avoiding the usual derailment you so desperatly wanted :)