Define zeteticism.

  • 132 Replies
  • 23803 Views
?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #30 on: June 13, 2008, 01:43:11 PM »
A fine catch. I stand corrected.

Which changes nothing.
Yes your point is unsupportable. Nothing changes.

Hardly. One of the premier laws is that, and i paraphrase: We cannot live in a special place and time in the universe.

Broken, beyond repair.

The laws of gravity .... smashed.

there you go, have at it.
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others

Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #31 on: June 13, 2008, 01:44:48 PM »
A fine catch. I stand corrected.

Which changes nothing.
Yes your point is unsupportable. Nothing changes.

Hardly. One of the premier laws is that, and i paraphrase: We cannot live in a special place and time in the universe.

Broken, beyond repair.

The laws of gravity .... smashed.

there you go, have at it.

First of all WTF premier laws are you talking about ??? 


Second, how have we violated this?  I'll give you a hint: we haven't.

*

Taters343

  • Official Member
  • 11963
  • Pope/Tater/Robot with flower girl capabilities!
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #32 on: June 13, 2008, 01:45:34 PM »
The laws of gravity .... smashed.

So what you are saying is that gravity does not exist?
Another victory for FE!

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #33 on: June 13, 2008, 01:58:49 PM »
A fine catch. I stand corrected.

Which changes nothing.
Yes your point is unsupportable. Nothing changes.

Hardly. One of the premier laws is that, and i paraphrase: We cannot live in a special place and time in the universe.

Broken, beyond repair.

The laws of gravity .... smashed.

there you go, have at it.

Why do you think FE would need to be in a "special place and time in the universe"?  ???

Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #34 on: June 13, 2008, 05:13:59 PM »
A fine catch. I stand corrected.

Which changes nothing.
Yes your point is unsupportable. Nothing changes.

Hardly. One of the premier laws is that, and i paraphrase: We cannot live in a special place and time in the universe.

Broken, beyond repair.

The laws of gravity .... smashed.

there you go, have at it.

Why do you think FE would need to be in a "special place and time in the universe"?  ???



because by FE "theory", you have the earth flat, the moon and sun as spotlights or whatever, and the rest of the universe does *not* follow this model.
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #35 on: June 13, 2008, 05:14:54 PM »
A fine catch. I stand corrected.

Which changes nothing.
Yes your point is unsupportable. Nothing changes.

Hardly. One of the premier laws is that, and i paraphrase: We cannot live in a special place and time in the universe.

Broken, beyond repair.

The laws of gravity .... smashed.

there you go, have at it.

Why do you think FE would need to be in a "special place and time in the universe"?  ???



because by FE "theory", you have the earth flat, the moon and sun as spotlights or whatever, and the rest of the universe does *not* follow this model.

How do you know?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #36 on: June 13, 2008, 05:15:40 PM »
A fine catch. I stand corrected.

Which changes nothing.
Yes your point is unsupportable. Nothing changes.

Hardly. One of the premier laws is that, and i paraphrase: We cannot live in a special place and time in the universe.

Broken, beyond repair.

The laws of gravity .... smashed.

there you go, have at it.

First of all WTF premier laws are you talking about ??? 


Second, how have we violated this?  I'll give you a hint: we haven't.

i'll give you a hint: i posted it.

Less obfuscation, more reading okay?
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #37 on: June 13, 2008, 05:16:05 PM »
Well, the special "place" and "time" is "here" and "now". Wise up to reality.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #38 on: June 13, 2008, 05:16:21 PM »
A fine catch. I stand corrected.

Which changes nothing.
Yes your point is unsupportable. Nothing changes.

How about direct observation?
Hardly. One of the premier laws is that, and i paraphrase: We cannot live in a special place and time in the universe.

Broken, beyond repair.

The laws of gravity .... smashed.

there you go, have at it.

Why do you think FE would need to be in a "special place and time in the universe"?  ???



because by FE "theory", you have the earth flat, the moon and sun as spotlights or whatever, and the rest of the universe does *not* follow this model.

How do you know?

Direct observation is a fine place to start.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2008, 05:19:55 PM by Wordsmith »
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others

?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #39 on: June 13, 2008, 05:17:42 PM »
Well, the special "place" and "time" is "here" and "now". Wise up to reality.

There is not, nor can there be anything "special" about the here and now. We are the same as everywhere else in the universe.

We are *not* special.
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #40 on: June 13, 2008, 05:19:27 PM »
There is not, nor can there be anything "special" about the here and now. We are the same as everywhere else in the universe.

We are *not* special.

No, I know. I should have put "special" in quotes too. It's always been this way and it always will.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #41 on: June 13, 2008, 05:20:55 PM »
A fine catch. I stand corrected.

Which changes nothing.
Yes your point is unsupportable. Nothing changes.

How about direct observation?
Hardly. One of the premier laws is that, and i paraphrase: We cannot live in a special place and time in the universe.

Broken, beyond repair.

The laws of gravity .... smashed.

there you go, have at it.

Why do you think FE would need to be in a "special place and time in the universe"?  ???



because by FE "theory", you have the earth flat, the moon and sun as spotlights or whatever, and the rest of the universe does *not* follow this model.

How do you know?

So you don't have an answer?  ???
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #42 on: June 13, 2008, 05:21:10 PM »
There is not, nor can there be anything "special" about the here and now. We are the same as everywhere else in the universe.

We are *not* special.

No, I know. I should have put "special" in quotes too. It's always been this way and it always will.

If you don't start making sense we're going to have to put you in a home :)
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others

Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #43 on: June 13, 2008, 05:22:08 PM »
Basically you have just said exactly nothing.

(1)  Being special or not is not a "law"
(2)  We do not claim to be special.  We claim to be flat.  Who knows how many flat Earths might exist behind us, beside us, way way in front of us, or in another dimension.


So say something useful, ok?

?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #44 on: June 13, 2008, 05:22:19 PM »
A fine catch. I stand corrected.

Which changes nothing.
Yes your point is unsupportable. Nothing changes.

How about direct observation?
Hardly. One of the premier laws is that, and i paraphrase: We cannot live in a special place and time in the universe.

Broken, beyond repair.

The laws of gravity .... smashed.

there you go, have at it.

Why do you think FE would need to be in a "special place and time in the universe"?  ???



because by FE "theory", you have the earth flat, the moon and sun as spotlights or whatever, and the rest of the universe does *not* follow this model.

How do you know?

So you don't have an answer?  ???

Re-read it, i had to edit my response in .... dunno why .....
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #45 on: June 13, 2008, 05:23:19 PM »
Direct observation is a fine place to start.

Interesting.  Direct observation of what, exactly?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #46 on: June 13, 2008, 05:25:49 PM »
Basically you have just said exactly nothing.

(1)  Being special or not is not a "law"
(2)  We do not claim to be special.  We claim to be flat.  Who knows how many flat Earths might exist behind us, beside us, way way in front of us, or in another dimension.


So say something useful, ok?

I did. and being special IS a law. if there were special this's and thats in the universe we would never be able to figure anything out. The laws of physics CANNOT change throughout the universe. WYSIWYG. otherwise, if the value for E or M or lambda changed depending on what was going on or where you were, there would be no facts.
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others

?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #47 on: June 13, 2008, 05:27:03 PM »
Direct observation is a fine place to start.

Interesting.  Direct observation of what, exactly?

what, do i have to hold your hand? if you are going to continue playing an idiot there can be no useful conversation here.
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #48 on: June 13, 2008, 05:27:17 PM »
Basically you have just said exactly nothing.

(1)  Being special or not is not a "law"
(2)  We do not claim to be special.  We claim to be flat.  Who knows how many flat Earths might exist behind us, beside us, way way in front of us, or in another dimension.


So say something useful, ok?

I did. and being special IS a law. if there were special this's and thats in the universe we would never be able to figure anything out. The laws of physics CANNOT change throughout the universe. WYSIWYG. otherwise, if the value for E or M or lambda changed depending on what was going on or where you were, there would be no facts.

Who claimed that the laws of physics for the earth are unique?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #49 on: June 13, 2008, 05:29:18 PM »
Direct observation is a fine place to start.

Interesting.  Direct observation of what, exactly?

what, do i have to hold your hand? if you are going to continue playing an idiot there can be no useful conversation here.

Does that mean you can't answer?  What do you observe that backs your point up?  If I don't know what you're referring to I can't rebut it.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #50 on: June 13, 2008, 05:45:02 PM »
Direct observation is a fine place to start.

Interesting.  Direct observation of what, exactly?

what, do i have to hold your hand? if you are going to continue playing an idiot there can be no useful conversation here.

Does that mean you can't answer?  What do you observe that backs your point up?  If I don't know what you're referring to I can't rebut it.

"Who claimed that the laws of physics for the earth are unique?" - FE "theory". The earth sun and moon cannot form one way and *all* the rest of the universe another. Claiming the earth is flat makes us "special" in regaurds to the rest of reality.

And if you cannot follow what seems to be a simple discussion, i don't know what to tell you other than figure it out. you have context, use your brain.
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #51 on: June 13, 2008, 05:49:31 PM »
I did.

Your laws (FE "theory" that is) that govern the sun and moon do not work within the FRW Universe and FRW cosmology .

at ALL.

Isn't FRW cosmology speculative?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #52 on: June 13, 2008, 05:51:39 PM »
Cosmologists and thoerist speculate.

Astronomers and physicists confirm.

the FE universe doesn't work.
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #53 on: June 13, 2008, 05:53:53 PM »
Cosmologists and thoerist speculate.

Astronomers and physicists confirm.

the FE universe doesn't work.

So it is speculative then?  I thought it was an unbreakable law.

« Last Edit: June 13, 2008, 05:55:51 PM by Roundy the Truthinessist »
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #54 on: June 13, 2008, 06:01:42 PM »
Who said that?

i see where this is going. If you are going to act like an idiot and try to talk circles to prove your non-point then we have nothing to discuss.

You understand the nature of theory vs law.

When a theory garners enough evidence, as did newtons 3, they become law.

I conceded as much in an earlier post.

The FRW model has an insurmountable pile of evidence in its favor. that pile is only getting bigger.

What does FE "theory" have?
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #55 on: June 13, 2008, 06:07:37 PM »
Honestly I'm still unclear on how exactly FE theory contradicts FRW cosmology.  Why is it impossible for FE to be part of a homogeneous, isotropic universe?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #56 on: June 13, 2008, 06:19:13 PM »
I already told you. and you should know it if you really knew what you were talking about, which i am now gathering you don't.

Follow me now:

WE

ARE

NOT

SPECIAL

Nor can we be for the universe to work the way it does. Get it? got it? good.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2008, 06:23:03 PM by Wordsmith »
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #57 on: June 13, 2008, 06:39:23 PM »
I already told you. and you should know it if you really knew what you were talking about, which i am now gathering you don't.

Follow me now:

WE

ARE

NOT

SPECIAL

Nor can we be for the universe to work the way it does. Get it? got it? good.

Maybe you're laboring under the notion that the observable universe is all there is to the universe.  There's nothing in most models of FE forbidding the existence of other planar objects such as the earth with their own observable universes above them.  There may be as many such systems as there are stars in our own observable universe for all we know, or even more.

If the flat earth isn't unique in this way, it would be appropriate to say that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, right?
« Last Edit: June 13, 2008, 06:49:11 PM by Roundy the Truthinessist »
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #58 on: June 13, 2008, 06:57:53 PM »
WE

ARE

SPECIAL

Hi Wordsmith,
I noticed your obvious typo and fixed it for you! Thanks for the encouragement, we all can use it after battling those mean globularists all day!
I'll be your science pal!

?

Wordsmith

  • 175
  • The Immoveable Stone in your World of Weak
Re: Define zeteticism.
« Reply #59 on: June 13, 2008, 10:34:54 PM »
I already told you. and you should know it if you really knew what you were talking about, which i am now gathering you don't.

Follow me now:

WE

ARE

NOT

SPECIAL

Nor can we be for the universe to work the way it does. Get it? got it? good.

Maybe you're laboring under the notion that the observable universe is all there is to the universe.  There's nothing in most models of FE forbidding the existence of other planar objects such as the earth with their own observable universes above them.  There may be as many such systems as there are stars in our own observable universe for all we know, or even more.

If the flat earth isn't unique in this way, it would be appropriate to say that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, right?

FE "theory" cannot exist in any of the FRW models. And FE "theory" does not allow an isotropic homogeneous universe to exist in the first place. Read your own FAQ, it's ALL there.

Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator, located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall. Each functions similar to a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light," the moon "cold light." As they are spotlights, they only give light out over a certain are which explains why some parts of the Earth are dark when others are light. Their apparent rising and setting are caused by optical illusions.


Q: "Why are other celestial bodies round but not the Earth?"

A: The Earth is not one of the other planets.  The Earth is special and unlike the other bodies in numerous ways.

WE

ARE

NOT

SPECIAL

We cannot be. it is one of the foundations of modern physics. If the laws of physics varied from place to place we could NEVER figure out ANYTHING, becuase there would be no reason for anything to be any particular way twice.


"If the Earth was indeed a flat disc, wouldn't the whole planet crunch up into itself and eventually transform into a ball?"

A1: If the Earth generated a gravitational field, yes, it would eventually happen, after a billion years maybe. FE assumes that the Earth does not generate a gravitational field.  What we know as 'gravity' is provided by the acceleration of the earth.

All bodies in space produce gravity. Its how the FRW models work. its how general and special reletivity work. both theories making exacand correct predictions time and time again. Easily verifyable.

Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.

ok, first it doesnt exist then it does, whats it going to be? and how can 32 mile discs exert gravitaional forces?

The universe does not work then not work. again, we are not special.

Q:  Follow-up to previous question:  How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?

A:  This argument is a non sequitur.  You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?"  Snakes are not dogs or cats.  The Earth is not a star or the moon.  It doesn't follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

I don't think i need to go on here, it most certainly is NOT non sequiter.

You cannot just pick and choose the parts of physics that support your claims and discount the one that don't appeal to your sensibilities. Well, i suppose you can, because you obviously are, but the universe is going to go right on existing without a flat earth, and you are going to continue to be dead wrong.




In the "accelerating upwards" model, the stars, sun and moon are also accelerating upwards.

The stars are about as far as San Francisco is from Boston. (3100 miles)

There is NO star within 3100 miles of earth. EASILY observed, well documented, amateur and professionally.
There is NO star that is in its main sequence that is only 32 miles in diameter. Easily observable, no such stars exist, nor can they.
The universe does NOT create spotlights.
Nothing is accelerating "upwards". In the FRW model, there is no "up" in the universe. the only acceleration that is occuring is everything moving away from each other, easily measured, handily predicted, READILY documented and explained.
You either completely misunderstand the relevant points because you are unfamiliar with them, or you choose to manipulate your interpretation to continue to deceive others