Get the idea all together.

Please, if your going to try and challenge the fact that the earth is round you might want to have all your theories already thought up and not changed unless you have enough physical or scientific evidence to prove it.

You guys have came up with new theories based on nothing but ideas and formulas. You need more proof.

If your theory isn't rock solid, it can't be true.

You don't have a solid theory of why gravity exerts a force on massive bodies, therefor gravity does not exist.

You think RE scientists know all there is to know about the universe? No, no, a million times no.

Can you explain why the RE's theory on gravity isn't rock solid?

can you explain what's wrong with it?

There's something that all the FE'ers here are missing.

There's a rule in the scientific community as a whole.

The burden of proof lies with those who wish to disprove the generally accepted theory.

For example, Einstien had to stand up and provide mathematical and empirical data as to why relativity is more accurate than newtonian physics.

If he'd stood up and said:  "You can't disprove my theory of relativity so it must be true," he'd have been laughed down.

Case in point

I'll assume that's a typo and you're asking my to explain why the RE theory on gravity is not rock solid.

And, from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe in gravity, I would cite the fact that the scientific community in general hasn't the slightest idea why it happens. They see it happening, and they can quantify some of the relationships involved, but there is no accepted explanation for how exactly that phenomenon occurs.

This lack of an accepted explanation is what makes the RE theory on gravity less than rock solid.

There's a rule in the scientific community as a whole.

The burden of proof lies with those who wish to disprove the generally accepted theory.

That's nice. Fortunately we FE's tend to disagree with "the scientific community as a whole" on a lot of things.

::facepalm::

and this, my friends, is what is known as a cheap copout.

coward.

::facepalm::

and this, my friends, is what is known as a cheap copout.

coward.

What on  "flat earth" is a cheap copout?

funny.

this:

That's nice. Fortunately we FE's tend to disagree with "the scientific community as a whole" on a lot of things.

is a cheap copout.

Or did you want a definition?

Ok, tell me if you like this one better:

Since the earth is flat, the scientific community is either lying to us or just plain wrong. Why would I bother myself with the "rules" of such a community?

And anyways, the burden of proof business only applies if I'm trying to actually change your position; I'm not. I'm only out to show that my belief is no less valid than yours, whichever the "accepted" theory may be.

If you want to just sit in your chair, cross your arms and say "Prove it", then you're going to get awfully lonely.

If you want to just sit in your chair, cross your arms and say "Prove it", then you're going to get awfully lonely

Because they can't.

Since the earth is flat, the scientific community is either lying to us or just plain wrong. Why would I bother myself with the "rules" of such a community?

And anyways, the burden of proof business only applies if I'm trying to actually change your position; I'm not. I'm only out to show that my belief is no less valid than yours, whichever the "accepted" theory may be.

If you want to just sit in your chair, cross your arms and say "Prove it", then you're going to get awfully lonely.

and here we see all three of the FE'rs problem in the same post

1) So just because one field of science claims something you disagree with, the enitire mode of conduct throughout the world's scientific community is invalid?  If you believe this, you truly are an imbecile.

2)  YOU HAVE NEVER SHOWN THE FE THEORY TO BE VALID  in any way, shape, or form.  You've told us how the RE theory 'must' be wrong.  You've even told us how modern ways of thinking 'must' be wrong.  I've yet to see any evidence for the FE that could actually be validated

3) This is exactly what you're doing.

Or did you want a definition?

I would prefer a definition

You don't have a solid theory of why gravity exerts

You know there is also no rock solid that humans exist we could be in a giant machine but not know becuase of all the conspiracys and stuff!