The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: THesMartKIdonthEBlock on July 03, 2010, 03:20:24 AM
-
Ok so i can understand that there are theories supporting the whole Fe thing, but if the earth is flat then how do you explain gravity? because if the earth was flat and spinning then everything would be spun outward...obviously.
-
Read the FAQ lol you dum fgt. In all seriousness, gravity =/= graviational pull, and they explain it with magic, which is also called universal acceleration.
-
Read the FAQ. Ctrl-F "gravity" "gravitation" or "Universal Acceleration".
-
FE in its need to explain the problem that Newtonian (or Einsteinian) gravity would mean mean that you'd weigh more in the center of the FE than elsewhere (and that is not observed) decided to through real gravity and invent its own. Relying of the EP and ignoring the Cavendish results, FE decided to have an unknown, unseen, not predicted, and non-falsifiable Universal Accelerator provide a poor mimic of gravity.
You need only say Cavendish, g varies with height regardless of the stars overhead at the time, or gravity on Earth is radial and tidal to dispel their UA and their theory. Unfortunately they did manage to obscure their failing from those not well-versed in EP. Even today lesser educated (Note this is no way is meant to impugn anyone's intelligence!) REers are tripped up by how they use the EP successfully. (Marbles in dough for dinner, anyone?)
-
FE in its need to explain the problem that Newtonian (or Einsteinian) gravity would mean mean that you'd weigh more in the center of the FE than elsewhere (and that is not observed) decided to through real gravity and invent its own.
Yes, we reject theories that do not describe reality. How dare we?
Relying of the EP and ignoring disputing the Cavendish results, FE decided to have an unknown, unseen, not predicted, and non-falsifiable Universal Accelerator provide a poor mimic of gravity.
I'm sorry, in what was is UA " unknown, unseen, not predicted, and non-falsifiable" and how is it a poor mimic of gravity, by which I assume you really mean gravitation?
You need only say Cavendish,
Which has been disputed.
g varies with height regardless of the stars overhead at the time,
wat. Do you think stars disappear during the day time? Does the world also disappear when mommy closes the shades?
or gravity on Earth is radial and tidal to dispel their UA and their theory.
Please elaborate.
-
FE in its need to explain the problem that Newtonian (or Einsteinian) gravity would mean mean that you'd weigh more in the center of the FE than elsewhere (and that is not observed) decided to through real gravity and invent its own.
Yes, we reject theories that do not describe reality. How dare we?
Gee... P. just told us that you do accept that trees have gravitational attraction, accepting a theory that does not describe reality. Golly. I have to wonder about the FEers and their theory. It's sure is odd that a theory can't be expressed consistently. I'll eagerly await your next dodge or weave.
-
FE in its need to explain the problem that Newtonian (or Einsteinian) gravity would mean mean that you'd weigh more in the center of the FE than elsewhere (and that is not observed) decided to through real gravity and invent its own.
Yes, we reject theories that do not describe reality. How dare we?
Gee... P. just told us that you do accept that trees have gravitational attraction, accepting a theory that does not describe reality. Golly. I have to wonder about the FEers and their theory. It's sure is odd that a theory can't be expressed consistently. I'll eagerly await your next dodge or weave.
I'm going to be completely honest, I have no idea what the fuck you're saying.
-
He says that you're wrong, because Parsifal said something else in another thread.
-
You need only say Cavendish,
Which has been disputed.
Which has been repeated all over the world over a hundreds of years and remains unchallenged in an significant work.
-
g varies with height regardless of the stars overhead at the time,
wat. Do you think stars disappear during the day time? Does the world also disappear when mommy closes the shades?
I do not think that stars disappear during the daytime. You're just trolling.
-
I'm sorry, in what was is UA " unknown, unseen, not predicted, and non-falsifiable" and how is it a poor mimic of gravity, by which I assume you really mean gravitation?
If you'll express your question in the form of a sentence, I'll try to answer it more thoroughly. Perhaps 'was' should be 'way'?
Unless you're going to tell me that you believe in GR and what experiments on the FE validate it, I see no reason to deal with the difference between gravity and gravitational attraction. If you're going to accept GR then the next paragraph applies.
As explained repeatedly, the UA cannot explain the radial nature of gravity. Do you have a question about this? You do understand that the EP applies only locally, right? So the UA fails to predict the measured curvature of the force.
-
You need only say Cavendish,
Which has been disputed.
Which has been repeated all over the world over a hundreds of years and remains unchallenged in an significant work.
It's been challenged. Are you unaware of what the word "disputed" means?
I'm sorry, in what was is UA " unknown, unseen, not predicted, and non-falsifiable" and how is it a poor mimic of gravity, by which I assume you really mean gravitation?
If you'll express your question in the form of a sentence, I'll try to answer it more thoroughly. Perhaps 'was' should be 'way'?
Unless you're going to tell me that you believe in GR and what experiments on the FE validate it, I see no reason to deal with the difference between gravity and gravitational attraction. If you're going to accept GR then the next paragraph applies.
As explained repeatedly, the UA cannot explain the radial nature of gravity. Do you have a question about this? You do understand that the EP applies only locally, right? So the UA fails to predict the measured curvature of the force.
Please elaborate on the "radial nature of gravity", and please state how it is relevant to UA and gravitation?
-
You need only say Cavendish,
Which has been disputed.
Which has been repeated all over the world over a hundreds of years and remains unchallenged in an significant work.
It's been challenged. Are you unaware of what the word "disputed" means?
Anything, whether true or false, can be disputed in that sense, so your point is worthless. Do try harder.
-
You need only say Cavendish,
Which has been disputed.
Which has been repeated all over the world over a hundreds of years and remains unchallenged in an significant work.
It's been challenged. Are you unaware of what the word "disputed" means?
Anything, whether true or false, can be disputed in that sense, so your point is worthless. Do try harder.
You're doing just that in another thread. Why can you, and why can he not?
-
You need only say Cavendish,
Which has been disputed.
Which has been repeated all over the world over a hundreds of years and remains unchallenged in an significant work.
It's been challenged. Are you unaware of what the word "disputed" means?
Anything, whether true or false, can be disputed in that sense, so your point is worthless. Do try harder.
You're doing just that in another thread. Why can you, and why can he not?
If so, I do apologize. Please tell me where so I can fix my mistake. Where do I challenge anything without logic or evidence?
-
That would be the entire "R's 100 Proofs, one at a time." thread.
-
That would be the entire "R's 100 Proofs, one at a time." thread.
Do elaborate. I hope you're not forgetting the burden of proof lies with Carpenter and his proofs, not me. The RE team need only demonstrate that each proof is faulty, and that can mean pointing out logic errors, lack of evidence, and a variety of other approaches.
-
I hope you're not forgetting the burden of proof lies with Carpenter
Incorrect. It has been previously discussed. Many, many times.
-
I hope you're not forgetting the burden of proof lies with Carpenter
Incorrect. It has been previously discussed. Many, many times.
Correct. It has been previously resolved definitely, but thanks for trying.
-
I hope you're not forgetting the burden of proof lies with Carpenter
Incorrect. It has been previously discussed. Many, many times.
Correct. It has been previously resolved definitely, but thanks for trying.
It has, but not to your favour. Good attempt, though.
-
I hope you're not forgetting the burden of proof lies with Carpenter
Incorrect. It has been previously discussed. Many, many times.
Correct. It has been previously resolved definitely, but thanks for trying.
It has, but not to your favour. Good attempt, though.
A good debate tutorial for you: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html)
-
What debate? Allow me to remind you that you eventually refused to discuss with me. There is no debate, just a series of accusations and the lack of understanding of a certain phrase.
Anyway, let's stop derailing the thread. Answer the original question.
-
What debate? Allow me to remind you that you eventually refused to discuss with me. There is no debate, just a series of accusations and the lack of understanding of a certain phrase.
Anyway, let's stop derailing the thread. Answer the original question.
What sensible question have you posed that I've not answered?
-
What debate? Allow me to remind you that you eventually refused to discuss with me. There is no debate, just a series of accusations and the lack of understanding of a certain phrase.
Anyway, let's stop derailing the thread. Answer the original question.
What sensible question have you posed that I've not answered?
The one that has been asked by myself in this thread, quite obviously.
-
Ooh, another beat around the bushes thread, lovely, do tell me when you decide to get back on topic.
-
You need only say Cavendish,
Which has been disputed.
Which has been repeated all over the world over a hundreds of years and remains unchallenged in an significant work.
It's been challenged. Are you unaware of what the word "disputed" means?
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
-
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.
-
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.
That was the implication.
-
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.
Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
-
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.
Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.
-
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.
Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.
As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
-
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.
Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.
As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
False. Cavendish has been disputed.
-
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.
Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.
As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
False. Cavendish has been disputed.
So what that Cavendish been disputed? That's irrelevant. Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
By your logic: I dispute FET; therefore, FET is false.
-
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.
Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.
As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
False. Cavendish has been disputed.
So what that Cavendish been disputed? That's irrelevant. Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
By your logic: I dispute FET; therefore, FET is false.
wat. I never claimed any such thing.
-
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.
Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.
As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
False. Cavendish has been disputed.
So what that Cavendish been disputed? That's irrelevant. Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
By your logic: I dispute FET; therefore, FET is false.
wat. I never claimed any such thing.
Whoever said you claimed anything? Have you ever claimed anything?
-
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.
Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.
As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
False. Cavendish has been disputed.
Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.
-
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.
Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.
As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
False. Cavendish has been disputed.
Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.
I never claimed such a thing.
-
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.
Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.
As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
False. Cavendish has been disputed.
Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.
I never claimed such a thing.
But you keep implying it.
-
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.
Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.
As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
False. Cavendish has been disputed.
Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.
I never claimed such a thing.
But you keep implying it.
You inferring incorrect statements is no the fault of I, or FET.
-
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.
Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.
As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
False. Cavendish has been disputed.
Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.
I never claimed such a thing.
But you keep implying it.
You inferring incorrect statements is no the fault of I, or FET.
Then stop saying that Cavendish has been disputed as if it means something.
-
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.
Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.
As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
False. Cavendish has been disputed.
Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.
I never claimed such a thing.
But you keep implying it.
You inferring incorrect statements is no the fault of I, or FET.
Then stop saying that Cavendish has been disputed as if it means something.
It does mean something. It means Cavendish has been disputed.
-
It does mean something. It means Cavendish has been disputed.
It remains irrelevant.
-
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.
Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.
As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
False. Cavendish has been disputed.
Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.
I never claimed such a thing.
But you keep implying it.
You inferring incorrect statements is no the fault of I, or FET.
Then stop saying that Cavendish has been disputed as if it means something.
It does mean something. It means Cavendish has been disputed.
And what exactly does Cavendish having been disputed mean in the context of this discussion?
-
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.
Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.
As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
False. Cavendish has been disputed.
Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.
I never claimed such a thing.
But you keep implying it.
You inferring incorrect statements is no the fault of I, or FET.
Then stop saying that Cavendish has been disputed as if it means something.
It does mean something. It means Cavendish has been disputed.
And what exactly does Cavendish having been disputed mean in the context of this discussion?
It means that Cavendish is not universally accepted by all, namely, those who dispute it.
-
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.
Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.
As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
False. Cavendish has been disputed.
Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.
I never claimed such a thing.
But you keep implying it.
You inferring incorrect statements is no the fault of I, or FET.
Then stop saying that Cavendish has been disputed as if it means something.
It does mean something. It means Cavendish has been disputed.
And what exactly does Cavendish having been disputed mean in the context of this discussion?
It means that Cavendish is not universally accepted by all, namely, those who dispute it.
And since those who dispute have failed to back up their claim with evidence, this remains irrelevant.
-
I've always liked disputing things. It sounds a little like proving something false but with out the proof and the obvious inconvenience of actually having to prove your point. I'm a prime example I dispute the Cavendish experiment, if he couldn't even get his arithmetic right how can I trust him to find G. Thankfully he wasn't trying to find G so all im disputing is his measurement of the density of the Earth. Thankfully a number of other folk have used torsion balances to measure G more recently.
M. Fitzgerald and T. R. Armstrong, IEEE Trans. on Inst. and Meas. 44, 494 (1995)
W. Michaelis, H. Haars, and R. Augustin, Metrologia 32, 267 (1995)
V.P. Izmailov, O.V. Karagioz et. al., Measurement Techniques 36, 1065 (1993)
H. Walesch, H. Meyer, H. Piehl, and J. Schurr, IEEE Trans. on Inst. and Meas. 44, 491 (1995)
J.H. Gundlach, E.G. Adelberger, B.R. Heckel, and H.E. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 54, 1256 (I don't think this uses a torsion balance)
-
I've always liked disputing things. It sounds a little like proving something false but with out the proof and the obvious inconvenience of actually having to prove your point. I'm a prime example I dispute the Cavendish experiment, if he couldn't even get his arithmetic right how can I trust him to find G. Thankfully he wasn't trying to find G so all im disputing is his measurement of the density of the Earth. Thankfully a number of other folk have used torsion balances to measure G more recently.
M. Fitzgerald and T. R. Armstrong, IEEE Trans. on Inst. and Meas. 44, 494 (1995)
W. Michaelis, H. Haars, and R. Augustin, Metrologia 32, 267 (1995)
V.P. Izmailov, O.V. Karagioz et. al., Measurement Techniques 36, 1065 (1993)
H. Walesch, H. Meyer, H. Piehl, and J. Schurr, IEEE Trans. on Inst. and Meas. 44, 491 (1995)
J.H. Gundlach, E.G. Adelberger, B.R. Heckel, and H.E. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 54, 1256 (I don't think this uses a torsion balance)
Thanks! Well done.
-
What debate? Allow me to remind you that you eventually refused to discuss with me. There is no debate, just a series of accusations and the lack of understanding of a certain phrase.
Anyway, let's stop derailing the thread. Answer the original question.
I've just read over the whole thread. You picked strawman after strawman, until it was probably realized that you were a lost cause, a casualty of madness. #1 was incorrect, because he essentially said if one were to look from a height, one would not see curvature. That is his premise, and without a source, it is based on the conclusion that the earth is flat. Therefore it is not proof, regarding that his premise is false
-
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.
Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.
As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
False. Cavendish has been disputed.
Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.
I never claimed such a thing.
But you keep implying it.
You inferring incorrect statements is no the fault of I, or FET.
Then stop saying that Cavendish has been disputed as if it means something.
It does mean something. It means Cavendish has been disputed.
And what exactly does Cavendish having been disputed mean in the context of this discussion?
It means that Cavendish is not universally accepted by all, namely, those who dispute it.
It is disputed by some neo nazis, that the holocaust never happened. Does that mean we can't use it as evidence for the evils of Hitler?
-
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.
Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.
As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
False. Cavendish has been disputed.
Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.
I never claimed such a thing.
But you keep implying it.
You inferring incorrect statements is no the fault of I, or FET.
Then stop saying that Cavendish has been disputed as if it means something.
It does mean something. It means Cavendish has been disputed.
And what exactly does Cavendish having been disputed mean in the context of this discussion?
It means that Cavendish is not universally accepted by all, namely, those who dispute it.
It is disputed by some neo nazis, that the holocaust never happened. Does that mean we can't use it as evidence for the evils of Hitler?
Do you have any evidence of the Holocaust happening?
-
Do you have any evidence of the Holocaust happening?
What about first hand accounts of people who lived through it? My father grew up in Nazi occupied Poland and personally witnessed some of the atrocities carried out against the Jews.
-
What about first hand accounts of people who lived through it? My father grew up in Nazi occupied Poland and personally witnessed some of the atrocities carried out against the Jews.
I have a friend that will testify to controlling Saturn with his mind.
-
I have a friend that will testify to controlling Saturn with his mind.
Does your friend have any evidence that he can control Saturn with his mind?
-
I have a friend that will testify to controlling Saturn with his mind.
Does your friend have any evidence that he can control Saturn with his mind?
He has first hand accounts of controlling Saturn with his mind. You implied this was acceptable evidence.
-
Do you have any evidence of the Holocaust happening?
Yes.
-
Do you have any evidence of the Holocaust happening?
Yes.
Present it or it is assumed non-existent.
-
Do you have any evidence of the Holocaust happening?
Yes.
Present it or it is assumed non-existent.
Really? You need to see proof of something that's in every high school history text in the last 20 years, really? Then I direct you to visit the http://www.ushmm.org/ (http://www.ushmm.org/) in person.
-
Do you have any evidence of the Holocaust happening?
Yes.
Present it or it is assumed non-existent.
Really? You need to see proof of something that's in every high school history text in the last 20 years, really? Then I direct you to visit the http://www.ushmm.org/ (http://www.ushmm.org/) in person.
I've been there, it was very touching. As was The Lion King.
-
Do you have any evidence of the Holocaust happening?
Yes.
Present it or it is assumed non-existent.
Really? You need to see proof of something that's in every high school history text in the last 20 years, really? Then I direct you to visit the http://www.ushmm.org/ (http://www.ushmm.org/) in person.
I've been there, it was very touching. As was The Lion King.
So why do waste the Forum's time if you've already seen the evidence in person?
-
Do you have any evidence of the Holocaust happening?
Yes.
Present it or it is assumed non-existent.
Really? You need to see proof of something that's in every high school history text in the last 20 years, really? Then I direct you to visit the http://www.ushmm.org/ (http://www.ushmm.org/) in person.
I've been there, it was very touching. As was The Lion King.
So why do waste the Forum's time if you've already seen the evidence in person?
Because I've also seen evidence that lions and monkeys talk.
-
Do you have any evidence of the Holocaust happening?
Yes.
Present it or it is assumed non-existent.
Really? You need to see proof of something that's in every high school history text in the last 20 years, really? Then I direct you to visit the http://www.ushmm.org/ (http://www.ushmm.org/) in person.
I've been there, it was very touching. As was The Lion King.
So why do waste the Forum's time if you've already seen the evidence in person?
Because I've also seen evidence that lions and monkeys talk.
So what does that have to do with asking for evidence that you've already since in person? Why do you waste the Forum's time like this?
-
So what does that have to do with asking for evidence that you've already since in person? Why do you waste the Forum's time like this?
I was hoping you had actual legitimate evidence.
-
So what does that have to do with asking for evidence that you've already since in person? Why do you waste the Forum's time like this?
I was hoping you had actual legitimate evidence.
Again, why do you waste the Forum's time like this?
-
Wow, this is stimulating. I have no first hand evidence that Brazil exists, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just means I have to use intelligence to decide what I think of the evidence.....wait I think i've just found the problem.
-
Wow, this is stimulating. I have no first hand evidence that Brazil exists, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just means I have to use intelligence to decide what I think of the evidence.....wait I think i've just found the problem.
You aren't implying that only intelligent individuals can discern the quality of the source of the evidence? Let's see know, I watch a Broadway Musical of a folktale where I see theatric effects, should I treat what I see as evidence? Probably not. I see in a national museum verified, objective evidence of a historic event, reported in the news of the day, should I treat what I see as evidence? Yep. Does BF waste the Forum's time? Yep.
-
Does BF waste the Forum's time? Yep.
I had noticed before that you like to refer to yourself as "us'. Now it's "the Forum". I believe this is a result of confusion. The words you're looking for are: "I", "me", "my time".
-
Again, why do you waste the Forum's time like this?
Markjo, a RE'er, made the claim that the Holocaust happened. I simply want him to support his statements with evidence.
-
Again, why do you waste the Forum's time like this?
Markjo, a RE'er, made the claim that the Holocaust happened. I simply want him to support his statements with evidence.
Why do you waste time asking for evidence you already have by first-hand account?
-
Is this thread some kind of joke? I think its a trap. If someone posts a link here then you could argue (incorrectly) that tertiary evidence becomes quaternary evidence, thus presumeably making it less reliable. Though in the binary definition used in this thread of primary or fictitious then whats the point in posting any evidence as it won't be first hand evidence.
-
Again, why do you waste the Forum's time like this?
Markjo, a RE'er, made the claim that the Holocaust happened. I simply want him to support his statements with evidence.
Why do you waste time asking for evidence you already have by first-hand account?
wat. I never said I say the holocaust happen.
-
I have a friend that will testify to controlling Saturn with his mind.
Does your friend have any evidence that he can control Saturn with his mind?
He has first hand accounts of controlling Saturn with his mind. You implied this was acceptable evidence.
No. You asked for evidence of the holocaust and I asked you if first hand accounts were acceptable. Tom Bishop seems to think that first hand accounts are valid evidence. Well, at least when it supports FET.
-
Again, why do you waste the Forum's time like this?
Markjo, a RE'er, made the claim that the Holocaust happened. I simply want him to support his statements with evidence.
Why do you waste time asking for evidence you already have by first-hand account?
wat. I never said I say the holocaust happen.
Nor did I. Why do you waste time asking for evidence you already have by first-hand account?
-
Nor did I. Why do you waste time asking for evidence you already have by first-hand account?
Because the legitimacy of that what I observed is questionable.
No. You asked for evidence of the holocaust and I asked you if first hand accounts were acceptable. Tom Bishop seems to think that first hand accounts are valid evidence. Well, at least when it supports FET.
First hand observations are, seconds hand accounts start to become questionable.
-
and you have decided that all secondary sources regarding the holocaust are suitably inconsistent as to reject the hypothesis?
-
and you have decided that all secondary sources regarding the holocaust are suitably inconsistent as to reject the hypothesis?
Those who care about reason and logic do not accept hypothesis.
-
Nor did I. Why do you waste time asking for evidence you already have by first-hand account?
Because the legitimacy of that what I observed is questionable.
How so? And again why do you ask for evidence that you already have by first-hand account? If you have the evidence already, you waste our time in providing it again. If you wish to challenge the evidence you saw, please do, but chose the proper forum. The legitimacy of the evidence in the Holocaust Museum is not on top and irrelevant to this debate. Please stop wasting our time.
-
I wouldn't agree with that. Its true that a hypothesis can never be entirely rejected or accepted. Instead we assign levels of confidence to our hypotheses. Its a problem thats plagued the social sciences, how do you quantify inherently qualitative data. Indeed as I type im working on a non-parametric hypothesis test in 3D data (cumulative freq. distributions don't work well in greater than 1D). Fortunately for me physics is my thing and my data tends to be lots of numbers so the idea of assigning probabilities and likelihoods is natural. Its harder in 'real life' but the principle is the same. I largely agree with your statement,
"Those who care about reason and logic do not accept hypothesis."
I would simply add the clause; 'or reject them'. Instead we assign some kind of subjective confidence. This can be based on many things, simple things like number of independent sources or clarity and consistency. A lot of incoherent sources maybe less convincing then a few independent but consistent ones. Theres always an element of subjectivity, we always weight our personal confidence level with an element of personal experience.
Oh and one thing you never hear "those who care about reason and logic" do, is make an absolutionist statement like 'do not accept hypothesis', event my modification is probably still to absolute.
-
Nor did I. Why do you waste time asking for evidence you already have by first-hand account?
Because the legitimacy of that what I observed is questionable.
How so? And again why do you ask for evidence that you already have by first-hand account? If you have the evidence already, you waste our time in providing it again. If you wish to challenge the evidence you saw, please do, but chose the proper forum. The legitimacy of the evidence in the Holocaust Museum is not on top and irrelevant to this debate. Please stop wasting our time.
Because that evidence was not, by my standards, valid. The person who made the claimmust either further support it's validity, or introduce new, valid evidence.
-
Nor did I. Why do you waste time asking for evidence you already have by first-hand account?
Because the legitimacy of that what I observed is questionable.
How so? And again why do you ask for evidence that you already have by first-hand account? If you have the evidence already, you waste our time in providing it again. If you wish to challenge the evidence you saw, please do, but chose the proper forum. The legitimacy of the evidence in the Holocaust Museum is not on top and irrelevant to this debate. Please stop wasting our time.
Because that evidence was not, by my standards, valid. The person who made the claimmust either further support it's validity, or introduce new, valid evidence.
Again, you already had evidence and still asked for it. You wasted our time. You should not ask someone who makes a claim to provide evidence you already have. It's a waste of time.
-
Nor did I. Why do you waste time asking for evidence you already have by first-hand account?
Because the legitimacy of that what I observed is questionable.
How so? And again why do you ask for evidence that you already have by first-hand account? If you have the evidence already, you waste our time in providing it again. If you wish to challenge the evidence you saw, please do, but chose the proper forum. The legitimacy of the evidence in the Holocaust Museum is not on top and irrelevant to this debate. Please stop wasting our time.
Because that evidence was not, by my standards, valid. The person who made the claimmust either further support it's validity, or introduce new, valid evidence.
Again, you already had evidence and still asked for it. You wasted our time. You should not ask someone who makes a claim to provide evidence you already have. It's a waste of time.
Please refrain from posting in threads until you understand how to read the posts others have made. Thank you.
-
Nor did I. Why do you waste time asking for evidence you already have by first-hand account?
Because the legitimacy of that what I observed is questionable.
How so? And again why do you ask for evidence that you already have by first-hand account? If you have the evidence already, you waste our time in providing it again. If you wish to challenge the evidence you saw, please do, but chose the proper forum. The legitimacy of the evidence in the Holocaust Museum is not on top and irrelevant to this debate. Please stop wasting our time.
Because that evidence was not, by my standards, valid. The person who made the claimmust either further support it's validity, or introduce new, valid evidence.
Again, you already had evidence and still asked for it. You wasted our time. You should not ask someone who makes a claim to provide evidence you already have. It's a waste of time.
Please refrain from posting in threads until you understand how to read the posts others have made. Thank you.
Right, about that... You really need to stop wasting our time. Please contribute to the debate or don't post. The issue again is Cavendish and his experiment that challenges that FET requirement that earth (vice Earth) is special and has no attractive 'gravity'. Do join the debate already in progress. Thank you.
-
Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.
Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.
Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.
As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.
False. Cavendish has been disputed.
Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.
I never claimed such a thing.
But you keep implying it.
You inferring incorrect statements is no the fault of I, or FET.
Then stop saying that Cavendish has been disputed as if it means something.
It does mean something. It means Cavendish has been disputed.
And what exactly does Cavendish having been disputed mean in the context of this discussion?
It means that Cavendish is not universally accepted by all, namely, those who dispute it.
It is disputed by some neo nazis, that the holocaust never happened. Does that mean we can't use it as evidence for the evils of Hitler?
Do you have any evidence of the Holocaust happening?
Do you know it's illegal to deny the holocaust?
-
Do you know it's illegal to deny the holocaust?
Not only am I not European, I'm not denying the Holocaust. Nice double fail.
-
It's just a question... nice fail :) i was never accusing you of denying it, just posing an interesting fact :D
-
It's just a question... nice fail :) i was never accusing you of denying it, just posing an interesting fact :D
Nice... BF hoisted by his own petard.
-
It's just a question... nice fail :) i was never accusing you of denying it, just posing an interesting fact :D
It's just a question... nice fail :) i was never accusing you of denying it, just posing an interesting fact :D
Nice... BF hoisted by his own petard.
ITT: REers use rhetorical questions, don't realize it.