The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Skeptek on June 16, 2009, 12:22:34 PM
-
This topic was created here to be debated, but was modded over the Angry Rant area here:
"FET: Creationism For Dummies ~ Act NOW!" (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29823.msg721770#msg721770). I don't think that is proper because it does actually ask for serious debate and is not a rant at all. I also don't think it's angry, but I could just be picking nits.
Regardless, I think it was moved to keep it out of the more active part of the site.
Every single argument I hear stems eventually from the idea that there must have been an intelligent designer of all these complicated systems that keep our ocean from draining, the stars, moon, etc. in the sky and all the rest of it.
I don't think I've heard any theories of how a 32 mi diameter, shiny metal disk came out of the big bang or anything else like that, so here I am.
Anybody?
-
Faeries.
Egyptian god spunk.
Magic.
Giant turtles.
Pcht, so many to choose from...
-
This topic was created here to be debated, but was modded over the Angry Rant area here:
"FET: Creationism For Dummies ~ Act NOW!" (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29823.msg721770#msg721770). I don't think that is proper because it does actually ask for serious debate and is not a rant at all. I also don't think it's angry, but I could just be picking nits.
Regardless, I think it was moved to keep it out of the more active part of the site.
Every single argument I hear stems eventually from the idea that there must have been an intelligent designer of all these complicated systems that keep our ocean from draining, the stars, moon, etc. in the sky and all the rest of it.
I don't think I've heard any theories of how a 32 mi diameter, shiny metal disk came out of the big bang or anything else like that, so here I am.
Anybody?
It is a stupid ad hominem attack. We have nothing to do with creationism. I'm moving this shitty meta topic to angry ranting. Your next thread that doesn't follow the rules gets you a two day ban. If you want to baww about which forum it is in then you really are pathetic.
-
We have nothing to do with creationism.
You are a liar. Ban me, please.
-
Most Flat Earth theorists are atheists. Lurk moar.
-
Most Flat Earth theorists are atheists. Lurk moar.
I thought the conspiracy is managed by devil workshipers. If there's a devil there's a God.
-
Most Flat Earth theorists are atheists.
I think Raist is the only exception, but even he doesn't seem apply divinity to creation of the earth.
I thought the conspiracy is managed by devil workshipers.
Who said that? Do you have a source?
If there's a devil there's a God.
How so?
-
Most Flat Earth theorists are atheists. Lurk moar.
I thought the conspiracy is managed by devil workshipers. If there's a devil there's a God.
Well you can believe there *are* devil worshippers while still being an atheist. You would just be admitting there are people who believe in such things while not believing in it yourself.
-
I thought the conspiracy is managed by devil workshipers.
Who said that? Do you have a source?
right here http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=712.0
If there's a devil there's a God.
How so?
Samuel Rowbotham would agree with me, he was a biblical literalist, and he is pretty much the father of FET.
-
This topic was created here to be debated, but was modded over the Angry Rant area here:
"FET: Creationism For Dummies ~ Act NOW!" (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29823.msg721770#msg721770). I don't think that is proper because it does actually ask for serious debate and is not a rant at all. I also don't think it's angry, but I could just be picking nits.
Regardless, I think it was moved to keep it out of the more active part of the site.
Every single argument I hear stems eventually from the idea that there must have been an intelligent designer of all these complicated systems that keep our ocean from draining, the stars, moon, etc. in the sky and all the rest of it.
I don't think I've heard any theories of how a 32 mi diameter, shiny metal disk came out of the big bang or anything else like that, so here I am.
Anybody?
It is a stupid ad hominem attack. We have nothing to do with creationism. I'm moving this shitty meta topic to angry ranting. Your next thread that doesn't follow the rules gets you a two day ban. If you want to baww about which forum it is in then you really are pathetic.
I think that would be an abuse of your mod powers. You are unwilling to cull off topic posts and deliberate trolling so why do this? You are not justified in doing so.
Make your position known Raist and leave the rest of the FEs to answer
-
This topic was created here to be debated, but was modded over the Angry Rant area here:
"FET: Creationism For Dummies ~ Act NOW!" (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29823.msg721770#msg721770). I don't think that is proper because it does actually ask for serious debate and is not a rant at all. I also don't think it's angry, but I could just be picking nits.
Regardless, I think it was moved to keep it out of the more active part of the site.
Every single argument I hear stems eventually from the idea that there must have been an intelligent designer of all these complicated systems that keep our ocean from draining, the stars, moon, etc. in the sky and all the rest of it.
I don't think I've heard any theories of how a 32 mi diameter, shiny metal disk came out of the big bang or anything else like that, so here I am.
Anybody?
It is a stupid ad hominem attack. We have nothing to do with creationism. I'm moving this shitty meta topic to angry ranting. Your next thread that doesn't follow the rules gets you a two day ban. If you want to baww about which forum it is in then you really are pathetic.
I think that would be an abuse of your mod powers. You are unwilling to cull off topic posts and deliberate trolling so why do this? You are not justified in doing so.
Make your position known Raist and leave the rest of the FEs to answer
Uhhh, my position is put topics in the right section. My other position is follow the rules or you will receive a ban. If you think I'm trying to prevent debate or protect anyone you are an idiot.
-
Really? Then why isn't Dogplatters photoelectric suspension theory in the nonsense section? Completely unsupported load of rubbish right there.
The OP was a question. Why don't you believe it should be here?
-
We have nothing to do with creationism.
You are a liar. Ban me, please.
Oh, did you go to alaska .net and think that site was anything besides a huge joke? And you are doubting our intelligence.
-
Most Flat Earth theorists are atheists. Lurk moar.
This may be the biggest lie on this website. The ideas cannot exist together in space/time.
-
We cannot speak personally for the FE'ers in entirety, but most of the members here do not belong to a religious tradition. It certainly speaks to RE'ers being blind to reality. All you had to do is lurk the philosophy and religious forum to see we are quite a diverse collection of beliefs. Our only central belief is that the earth is flat.
-
I didn't make any such distinction about tradition. Your beliefs are religious by nature of their origin of philosophy, requirement for intelligent design, unscientific representation of rational, etc., etc....
FET itself is creationism at it's core. The FET movement is dishonesty at it's core. The two things are inherently bonded in concept and dependent on one another for existence.
-
Oh, did you go to alaska .net and think that site was anything besides a huge joke?
Actually, I didn't stay long enough to read it, but I admit I would probably have thought it was as "real" as this site. ::)
And you are doubting our intelligence.
Yes, I am.
-
Now, how about my OP? Any answers?
-
I don't think I've heard any theories of how a 32 mi diameter, shiny metal disk came out of the big bang or anything else like that, so here I am.
I don't think I've heard any theories of how a 13 Mm diameter ball of rock came out of the Big Bang.
-
I'm in the minority position of non-atheist FE proponent. Though, I'm not sure I would classify my beliefs about the cosmos as "creationist" in the sense commonly used.
-
I quote myself
I thought the conspiracy is managed by devil workshipers. If there's a devil there's a God.
you can find FET theory about the satanist conspiracy here http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=712.0
and now I quote Samuel Rowbotham, that uses a biblic exemple to justify his Flat earth theory.
Again; as the earth is a globe and in continual motion, how could Jesus on being "taken up to into an exceedingly high mountain see all kingdoms of the world, in a moment of time?" Or when, "He cometh with clouds and every eye shall see him," how could it be possible, seeing that at least twenty-four hours would elapse before every part of the earth would be turned to the same point? But it has been demonstrated that the Earth is a plane and motionless, and that from a great eminence every part of its surface could be seen at once; and at once - at the same moment, could every eye behold Him, when "coming in a cloud with power and great glory".
It's pretty clear that the Flat Earth Society founder was simply trying to prove that the bible is literal.
Modern FEers might not be religious people, but the FET is based on the creationism, and there are biblical references and satanist reference all over the place.
-
How about answers to QUESTIONS?
-
This is the only question I found in the OP:
Anybody?
I'm afraid I don't quite know how to answer a pronoun.
-
You should respond with a gerund.
-
Do you believe FE theory and Creationism are exclusive concepts?
-
They may clearly be exclusive, as many FET advocates have stated they are not in the slight religiously inclined. Are you asking if they are mutually exclusive? In that case, they are not mutually exclusive, as you have pointed out that "creationists" have also held FE beliefs. You're asking a question that has already been answered in the thread. FET may stand alone without religious fundamentalism on its own merits, or it may reside hand-in-hand with religious beliefs of all flavours.
-
We have nothing to do with creationism.
You are a liar. Ban me, please.
Bullshit. FE in no way condones sliding continents traveling on the back of a really heavy rainfall.
-
This is the only question I found in the OP:
Anybody?
I'm afraid I don't quite know how to answer a pronoun.
Fair enough. Question: If you claim your belief in FET is not religious, how can that be? They are the same thing.
-
The existence of devil-worshippers does not indicate the existence of a devil. How could you be so stupid?
Flat Earth Theory has nothing to do with religion, and just blankly stating that it does is really retarded.
-
It is a stupid ad hominem attack. We have nothing to do with creationism.
Incorrect.
Besides advocating a ltieralist interpretation of Bible, young earth creationism (as it is now known) and an appocalypic vision of earth history, Parallax contended that the earth was a flat disc with the North Pole at its centre.
While it may be true that you are an athiest (because you're just here for the lolz and mod powaz) Rowbotham, founder of the zetetic society and upon whom so many posters here rely, certainly was a creationist.
I am not an atheist, but most flat Earth believers are. Just because the founder did so for religious reasons doesn't mean you can't believe them. Mexico was discovered on a conquest for God, do you allow yourself to believe in it?
-
Of course, the hilarious irony is that Newton himself, when unable to explain the mechanism of gravity but merely describe it, basically concluded that God was perpetuating it. My colleague Mr Bishop, I believe, has the details of a number of sources which elucidate the embroilment in religion of this globularist hero.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
-
I am not an atheist, but most flat Earth believers are..
Strange how nobody is an atheist, and yet "most are" at the same time.
Just because the founder did so for religious reasons doesn't mean you can't believe them.
Yes, it does when religious reasons are the only ones. It proves their belief is religious and not science. The two exclude each other completely.
Mexico was discovered on a conquest for God, do you allow yourself to believe in it?
Non factual, and non-sequetor. The fact that Europeans eventually found Mexico and murdered/raped/pillaged/enslaved it in the name of your "God" at some point in history, is meaningless here. The land and people were there long before Jebus arrived. My belief in Mexico was not dictated to me by a religious book written by a religious extremist. Your belief in FET was. Can your white-hooded mom drive you to the flat Earth?
Where are these "atheists" that you speak of?
Of course, the hilarious irony is that Newton himself, when unable to explain the mechanism of gravity but merely describe it, basically concluded that God was perpetuating it. My colleague Mr Bishop, I believe, has the details of a number of sources which elucidate the embroilment in religion of this globularist hero.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Aligning with the biggest bible-thumping wacko-troll around here is not a good way to argue that FET isn't creationism... if that's what you are trying to argue.
Tom Bishop is a liar and a troll. There's no way to know what he actually believes. Everything he references is based on Rowbotham's "work" which proves his stated beliefs are religious in nature and not related to science in the slightest.
My point has been proven well so far, thanks everyone. I look forward to a real debate with an "FE'er Atheist" soon.
-
I'm the biggest bible thumping wacko around here? Wow.
Can you point out the last time I posted any religious views I have?
-
Of course, the hilarious irony is that Newton himself, when unable to explain the mechanism of gravity but merely describe it, basically concluded that God was perpetuating it. My colleague Mr Bishop, I believe, has the details of a number of sources which elucidate the embroilment in religion of this globularist hero.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
This is a typical FE distraction. Like all scientific work, Newton's contribution was judged on it's own scientific merits and not in the context of religious believe.
If the Pope published a paper on Dark Matter, it would likewise be judged on its core scientific content.
-
I am not an atheist, but most flat Earth believers are..
Strange how nobody is an atheist, and yet "most are" at the same time.
Let's put an end to this ridiculous concern. I am not religious. John Davis is not religious. Daniel Shenton is not religious. Tom Bishop is not religious. Neeman is not religious. That's five of the most eminent living Flat Earth theorists so far who are not motivated by religion. I could continue, but I hope this list of leading players in the modern movement who are atheists or agnostics ought to assuage the notion that Zeteticism has any connection to religion.
Just because the founder did so for religious reasons doesn't mean you can't believe them.
Yes, it does when religious reasons are the only ones. It proves their belief is religious and not science. The two exclude each other completely.
No they don't, because scientific methods can be applied to claims which are relevant to religion. The shape of the Earth isn't relevant to religion, but nonetheless, the methods employed in Earth not a Globe (i.e., reliance on observational data) attest to its status as science.
Aligning with the biggest bible-thumping wacko-troll around here is not a good way to argue that FET isn't creationism... if that's what you are trying to argue.
Tom Bishop is a liar and a troll. There's no way to know what he actually believes. Everything he references is based on Rowbotham's "work" which proves his stated beliefs are religious in nature and not related to science in the slightest.
My point has been proven well so far, thanks everyone. I look forward to a real debate with an "FE'er Atheist" soon.
Oh do shut up, I've known Tom Bishop for over three years and am far better equipped than you to make a judgement as to his sincerity. You simply do not have the faintest clue what you're talking about. Your offensive slurs towards my esteemed colleagues are inciting me to great anger, I suggest that you stop slandering them immediately.
I am one of many atheist Flat Earthers. I'm quite ready to engage you in 'real debate', now stop complaining.
-
Of course, the hilarious irony is that Newton himself, when unable to explain the mechanism of gravity but merely describe it, basically concluded that God was perpetuating it. My colleague Mr Bishop, I believe, has the details of a number of sources which elucidate the embroilment in religion of this globularist hero.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
This is a typical FE distraction. Like all scientific work, Newton's contribution was judged on it's own scientific merits and not in the context of religious believe.
If the Pope published a paper on Dark Matter, it would likewise be judged on its core scientific content.
I absolutely agree, which is why the charge that the alleged religiousity of Rowbotham invalidates his work is completely baseless. I bring up Newton's own faith just as an illustrative example of the appaling double-standard which is being championed by the globularist who initiated this discussion.
-
When I read it synoptically with consideration of the cultural context of the publication, I thought, 'great job, Dr Rowbotham, a nod to religion will net you a far greater level of support from a large potential audience which might otherwise abhor you'.
-
When I read it synoptically with consideration of the cultural context of the publication, I thought, 'great job, Dr Rowbotham, a nod to religion will net you a far greater level of support from a large potential audience which might otherwise abhor you'.
Hmm. So you thought Rowbotham was (deliberately) lying, and you somehow knew he was lying. Yet you though it was OK for him to lie in order to aquire a following that might not have occured if Rowbotham had not lied. In todays cultural context we call that deception.
Interesting.
Same could be said for di vinci. He made many works for churches and many religious paintings, but inside them you can find many intentional discrepancies hinting at his more atheist view.
-
When I read it synoptically with consideration of the cultural context of the publication, I thought, 'great job, Dr Rowbotham, a nod to religion will net you a far greater level of support from a large potential audience which might otherwise abhor you'.
Hmm. So you thought Rowbotham was (deliberately) lying, and you somehow knew he was lying. Yet you though it was OK for him to lie in order to aquire a following that might not have occured if Rowbotham had not lied. In todays cultural context we call that deception.
Interesting.
Same could be said for di vinci. He made many works for churches and many religious paintings, but inside them you can find many intentional discrepancies hinting at his more atheist view.
Dogplatter: So it's quite plausible that you would deceptively state FE evidence as factual when you knew it was a lie in order to gain a greater following? You've just condoned and possible endorsed this exact action.
It doesn't bode well for your credibility.
-
In the Victorian Era many scientists incorporated religion.
Just look at what Charles Darwin has to say on his religious convictions (http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/charles_darwins_faith_religious_beliefs.html):
"During these two years (i.e. October 1836 to January 1839) I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them."
-
Globularists want to have their cake and eat it, too. It's fine and dandy when Newton, Darwin, or anyone else who isn't a Flat Earther rattles on about Christianity in their work. God forbid (no pun intended) that a zetetic scientist from the 1800s do the same!
-
Dogplatter: So it's quite plausible that you would deceptively state FE evidence as factual when you knew it was a lie in order to gain a greater following? You've just condoned and possible endorsed this exact action.
It doesn't bode well for your credibility.
I can't really conceive of a modern-day scenario in which something like this would work. Science and religion, for example, aren't entangled any more, so being sincere about my atheism doesn't harm my reputation.
-
You know squat about the Victorian Zetetics. Their efforts were not generally profitable at all, often incurring substantial financial and personal sacrifice.
-
You know squat about the Victorian Zetetics. Their efforts were not generally profitable at all, often incurring substantial financial and personal sacrifice.
I don't know about that Dogplatter. Rowbotham seemed to do pretty well for himself on the lecture circuit.
-
Unfortunately neither Darwin, Newton nor Da Vinci went on a massively profitable tour of the country proclaiming the Bible as literally true.
Please read the quote I provided. Charles Darwin published in his Autobiography that he believed scripture in the Bible to be literally true. Should we throw away Darwin's work because of those ideas?
No. Darwin's scientific work stands on it's own, just as Samuel Birley Rowbotham's work does.
-
Same could be said for di vinci.
In the Victorian Era many scientists incorporated religion.
[/url]:
Globularists want to have their cake and eat it, too. It's fine and dandy when Newton, Darwin, or anyone else who isn't a Flat Earther rattles on about Christianity in their work. God forbid (no pun intended) that a zetetic scientist from the 1800s do the same!
Unfortunately neither Darwin, Newton nor Da Vinci went on a massively profitable tour of the country proclaiming the Bible as literally true.
I can't really conceive of a modern-day scenario in which something like this would work. Science and religion, for example, aren't entangled any more, so being sincere about my atheism doesn't harm my reputation.
It is a modern day scenario. You are promoting the work of someone you seem to claim deliberately decieved his readers (and attendees for his lectures). By attaching yourself to someone who decieves for profit your credibility is massively in question.
Yeah, Darwin went on a profitable tour of the world proclaiming the Bible true. Da vinci was payed handsomely by his king to paint scenes from the true bible.
-
Please read the quote I provided. Charles Darwin published in his Autobiography that he believed scripture in the Bible to be literally true.
No he didn't. The quote you gave shows Darwin reflecting on his early naivity before he had developed his theory of evolution. The article you linked chronicles Darwins increasing skepticism towards Christianity. Well done Tom, you've really out done yourself this time.
Ok. You do realize that charles darwin was a christian when he died. He didn't believe that all species originated from a single species. He only believed that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth. So good job claiming he was doubtful when he was developing his theory of evolution.
I bet the Monk Gregory Mendell was very doubtful when he was discovering traits were genetic.
-
Yeah, Darwin went on a profitable tour of the world proclaiming the Bible true.
Epic, epic lulz.
He went around the world, studying species, and proclaiming the gospel was true. This trip was profitable. Therefore he went on a profitable trip around the world proclaiming the bible true.
Do you not understand english?
-
Do you not understand english?
I do. I also understand that Darwin didn't go around the world proclaiming the gospel true.
As long as you keep trollin' I keep lolin'
Well he went from England to the Gollapogos. Correct? And that's pretty damn far, I'd say it's around the world. (figuratively if not literally)
Now, we showed a diary telling of him proclaiming the gospel as true while on the HSS Beagle. Would this not mean that he went around the world proclaiming the gospel true? (I am in no way implying intent, fucking read the sentence literally.)
-
Unfortunately neither Darwin, Newton nor Da Vinci went on a massively profitable tour of the country proclaiming the Bible as literally true.
Please read the quote I provided. Charles Darwin published in his Autobiography that he believed scripture in the Bible to be literally true. Should we throw away Darwin's work because of those ideas?
No. Darwin's scientific work stands on it's own, just as Samuel Birley Rowbotham's work does.
Yes, Darwin's scientific work stands on its own. No, Rowbotham's scientific work doesn't stand on its own.
-
Globularists want to have their cake and eat it, too. It's fine and dandy when Newton, Darwin, or anyone else who isn't a Flat Earther rattles on about Christianity in their work. God forbid (no pun intended) that a zetetic scientist from the 1800s do the same!
As a Globularist, I condemn most of the past great minds for even acknowledging the religious influences in scientific studies. To go even further, I condemn the political populous for doing the same. I've also never denied that these same minds have not done so in an effort to debunk the ideas of Rowbotham.
-
Sorry Hara, I didn't intend universal qualification of that statement and shouldn't have used that phraseing. I mainly intended the globularists in this thread, though the statement might take a semi-general extension. I also would consider you not to be representative of the average globularist (which I mean in a good way).
-
Sorry Hara, I didn't intend universal qualification of that statement and shouldn't have used that phraseing. I mainly intended the globularists in this thread, though the statement might take a semi-general extension. I also would consider you not to be representative of the average globularist (which I mean in a good way).
It's all good, I was just putting a more informed spin on the whole religious outlook on things. Despite my being an Atheist, I am deeply interested in the teachings of religious texts and am really amazed at how often they have been used in explaining some scientific theories. But then again, can you really blame these individuals for doing so? The lack of technology is most likely the cause of this. In todays terms, we know that these are not the works of an omnipotent being, despite still lacking an explanation for the mechanics of how some things work, thanks to technology such as the LHC at CERN.
The more disturbing portrayal is, as I said, residing in the political sectors. "In God We Trust" is used far too much in the United States, and it's dangerous. It's the cause of sexual persecution, discrimination, et cetera. It's what drives politicians into volleying for the majority of religious voters (being that the leading religious system in the United States is Christianity), and so the politicians will try and cater to these blind individuals. I'm sure you know where I am getting at with this.
In the end, it's really not that avoidable. All we can really do is look the other way when these come up and try and focus on the more Zetetic and scientific aspects of our theories and work to further those.
Also, thanks for the recognition versus the globularist populous. I think it's proof enough by the types that come here.
-
Well, the vast majority of globularists are religious. Judging by the activity here most FEers don't appear to be.
-
Well, the vast majority of globularists are religious. Judging by the activity here most FEers don't appear to be.
LOL That's some of your best flawed logic yet.
But still, to recap:
Flat earth theory: Exists to prove Bible true.
Round Earth Theory: Exists because evidence independent of Bible was gathered.
I don't believe FET exists to prove the Bible true.
-
Well, the vast majority of globularists are religious. Judging by the activity here most FEers don't appear to be.
LOL That's some of your best flawed logic yet.
But still, to recap:
Flat earth theory: Exists to prove Bible true.
Round Earth Theory: Exists because evidence independent of Bible was gathered.
I don't believe FET exists to prove the Bible true.
If anything, it's the other way around.
-
Well, the vast majority of globularists are religious. Judging by the activity here most FEers don't appear to be.
LOL That's some of your best flawed logic yet.
But still, to recap:
Flat earth theory: Exists to prove Bible true.
Round Earth Theory: Exists because evidence independent of Bible was gathered.
I don't believe FET exists to prove the Bible true.
If anything, it's the other way around.
That I agree with. After all, it's been the opinion of the church that the Earth was round since the beginning. Given the dogmatic beliefs of even the most progressive scientists of most of the Modern Era it's no surprise it's grown into the myth it has.
-
Sorry Hara, I didn't intend universal qualification of that statement and shouldn't have used that phraseing. I mainly intended the globularists in this thread, though the statement might take a semi-general extension. I also would consider you not to be representative of the average globularist (which I mean in a good way).
Interesting. Your post seems to indicate that you believe there are no flat earthers acknowledging religion in their work. (Much less identfying their religion as a fundamental truth in their work) And instead it's only the "globularists" who act in such a way.
I find this curious.
No it doesn't. I said this:
"Globularists want to have their cake and eat it, too. It's fine and dandy when Newton, Darwin, or anyone else who isn't a Flat Earther rattles on about Christianity in their work. God forbid (no pun intended) that a zetetic scientist from the 1800s do the same!"
-
The Zetetic Society disagree.
We are the Zetetic Society.
-
The Zetetic Society disagree.
We are the Zetetic Society.
No I'm afraid you're not. The remnants of the Zetetic Society died long ago.
If that's the case, why cite them?
And what does that video have to do with anything?
-
We're 'about' the earth being flat, and most of our theories have nothing to do with anything discussed by the Zetetic Society. Just because we talk about them, does not mean we believe everything they believe.
-
We're 'about' the earth being flat, and most of our theories have nothing to do with anything discussed by the Zetetic Society. Just because we talk about them, does not mean we believe everything they believe.
Actually most of your theories have quite a lot to do with those discussed by the Zetetic Society.
Tell me, as I'm not as big an expert as you on the subject of the Zetetic Society, did they discuss the EA? Or the UA? Or did they think the Earth was an infinite plane? I view those theories as our main theories.
-
We're 'about' the earth being flat, and most of our theories have nothing to do with anything discussed by the Zetetic Society. Just because we talk about them, does not mean we believe everything they believe.
Actually most of your theories have quite a lot to do with those discussed by the Zetetic Society.
Tell me, as I'm not as big an expert as you on the subject of the Zetetic Society, did they discuss the EA? Or the UA? Or did they think the Earth was an infinite plane? I view those theories as our main theories.
Irrelevant. Please show a direct line of succession from Rowbotham to Daniel. Or even from Charles K. Johnson to any member on this site.
-
We're 'about' the earth being flat, and most of our theories have nothing to do with anything discussed by the Zetetic Society. Just because we talk about them, does not mean we believe everything they believe.
Actually most of your theories have quite a lot to do with those discussed by the Zetetic Society.
Tell me, as I'm not as big an expert as you on the subject of the Zetetic Society, did they discuss the EA? Or the UA? Or did they think the Earth was an infinite plane? I view those theories as our main theories.
Irrelevant. Please show a direct line of succession from Rowbotham to Daniel. Or even from Charles K. Johnson to any member on this site.
Uh, what? You realise that I am arguing we are not linked to those movements?
-
Uh, what? You realise that I am arguing we are not linked to those movements?
Neeman, you always seem to confuse your own opinions as being those of every other FEer on this board. I've already directed you to the FAQ which cites Rowbotham (father of the zetetics) and his work. Likewise the majority of FEers here will cite ENaG in any debate (Protip: That's why its in the FAQ) I think I've been through this with you before.
From the board rules:
Disclaimer
The opinions and beliefs expressed in any posts do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of The Flat Earth Society Forums.
The Flat Earth Society Forums' goal is to promote the free discussion of The Flat Earth Theory as well as the free discussion of and debate of any topic of interest to our members that do not contradict Forum Rules.
The views of any individual or organization (including that of the old Flat Earth Society run by Charles K Johnson) are not necessarily shared in whole or in part by The Flat Earth Society Forums. The only person qualified to give the official position of the Forums (if required) is Daniel.
Also please remember that views of the Forum are not necessarily shared by the Forum Staff who come from both sides of The Flat/Sphere Debate and whose sole unifying purpose is to promote a smooth running forum so as to encourage the victory of truth through free discussion and argument.
The 'FAQ' is just that, and nothing more. We don't consider it a constitution, so neither should you.
-
Unfortunately neither Darwin, Newton nor Da Vinci went on a massively profitable tour of the country proclaiming the Bible as literally true.
Please read the quote I provided. Charles Darwin published in his Autobiography that he believed scripture in the Bible to be literally true. Should we throw away Darwin's work because of those ideas?
No. Darwin's scientific work stands on it's own, just as Samuel Birley Rowbotham's work does.
A lot of this, while typed in an eleoquent manner, is incorrect. There are conflicting stories about Darwin's religious beliefs. Darwin was agnostic and refused to believe in God or the scriptures in a literal sense. Some people maintain that he changed this belief shortly before his death and acknowledged the Christian construct of God, but I find that hard to believe (as did his family).
-
We're 'about' the earth being flat, and most of our theories have nothing to do with anything discussed by the Zetetic Society. Just because we talk about them, does not mean we believe everything they believe.
Actually most of your theories have quite a lot to do with those discussed by the Zetetic Society.
Tell me, as I'm not as big an expert as you on the subject of the Zetetic Society, did they discuss the EA? Or the UA? Or did they think the Earth was an infinite plane? I view those theories as our main theories.
Irrelevant. Please show a direct line of succession from Rowbotham to Daniel. Or even from Charles K. Johnson to any member on this site.
Uh, what? You realise that I am arguing we are not linked to those movements?
We really need a score board to keep track of who believes what around here. :-\
-
"FET is creationism, nothing more."
The fact that FET accepts acceleration as the reason why we experience gravity is their flaw, and therewith, untrue.
-
"FET is creationism, nothing more."
The fact that FET accepts acceleration as the reason why we experience gravity is their flaw, and therewith, untrue.
How is that a flaw?
-
"FET is creationism, nothing more."
The fact that FET accepts acceleration as the reason why we experience gravity is their flaw, and therewith, untrue.
How is that a flaw?
Well, I thought I made it pretty clear, and needed not say anything more.
Acceleration would first have to be constant, and second constantly falling (acceleration) would result a zero-gravity environment.
Like in air-plane simulators. And please don't come back saying we're falling upside down. That would be preposterous!
http://www.incredible-adventures.com/zerog.html
-
"FET is creationism, nothing more."
The fact that FET accepts acceleration as the reason why we experience gravity is their flaw, and therewith, untrue.
How is that a flaw?
Well, I thought I made it pretty clear, and needed not say anything more.
Acceleration would first have to be constant, and second constantly falling (acceleration) would result a zero-gravity environment.
Like in air-plane simulators. And please don't come back telling me we're falling upside down!
http://www.incredible-adventures.com/zerog.html
You don't know the difference between constant acceleration and constant velocity do you?
An zero gravity simulator goes into free fall so it is no longer accelerating but going at a constant velocity.
Eat me.
-
You don't know the difference between constant acceleration and constant velocity do you?
An zero gravity simulator goes into free fall so it is no longer accelerating but going at a constant velocity.
Eat me.
Use a dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/%20acceleration
-
You don't know the difference between constant acceleration and constant velocity do you?
An zero gravity simulator goes into free fall so it is no longer accelerating but going at a constant velocity.
Eat me.
Use a dictionary.
Acceleration = Velocity
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/%20acceleration
No, acceleration is the change in velocity. Constant acceleration = constant change in velocity. Constant velocity = zero acceleration.
0/10
-
No, acceleration is the change in velocity. Constant acceleration = constant change in velocity. Constant velocity = zero acceleration.
0/10
No, stop mincing words.
The definition of constant is unchanging (varying; uniform). Acceleration is the changing of velocity, therefore not constant.
-
No, acceleration is the change in velocity.
0/10
Its still velocity, I never said it was constant, you did.
Eat your words.
-
No, acceleration is the change in velocity.
0/10
Its still velocity, I never said it was constant, you did.
Eat your words.
Well then, if there isn't a constant velocity, but there is a constant acceleration, we would feel it.
Let me break it down for you.
f=ma
force= mass * acceleration
Now we know that mass is constant so we will assume it is one.
force = acceleration
as long as the acceleration is constant, the force you feel is constant.
-
Well then, if there isn't a constant velocity, but there is a constant acceleration, we would feel it.
Hey are you retarded?
You have a dictionary link provided from the previous posts. Acceleration cannot be constant. <<<-- (the black dot signifies a period)
Let me break it down for you.
Break it down for yourself. I hope other members on this forum aren't retarded as you. Constant acceleration, yeah right!
-
Constant acceleration is definitely possible.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/acons.html
here, educate yourself.
-
Constant acceleration is definitely possible.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/acons.html
here, educate yourself.
Educate me!
You can't even use a dictionary let alone are attempting to teach what you have yet to learn, physics.
-
The 'FAQ' is just that, and nothing more. I don't consider it a constitution, so neither should you.
I fixed that for you.
But I'm curious now...
If, as you accept, Daniel is the only person qualified to give the official position of the Forums, then why are you posting?
Anyone who does consider it a constitution is in error, and if I were you I wouldn't go around assuming to know what other people think when you've never actually asked them. Why am I posting. That's a dumb question. Because I want to?
-
Anyone who does consider it a constitution is in error, and if I were you I wouldn't go around assuming to know what other people think when you've never actually asked them. Why am I posting. That's a dumb question. Because I want to?
Daniel wrote the FAQ. As you say, he is the only one permitted to act as the official voice of TFES.
Your views contradict his. So why are you posting again?
Show me which of Daniel's posts contradict my views. Seriously, go and have a look at the FAQs KillaBee. I'll be waiting right here.
-
Show me which of Daniel's posts contradict my views. Seriously, go and have a look at the FAQs KillaBee. I'll be waiting right here.
No problem:
You should note that some FE'ers do not regard ENAG as definitive. I certainly think there are major issues with the book.
Daniel cites Rowbotham's work as definitive evidence in the FAQ.
If Daniel thinks Rowbothams work is correct, then what right do you have to say there are major issues with it?
Daniel's post says this:
All credit for this FAQ goes to joffenz, Erasmus, Robbyj, ﮎingulaЯiτy, and Trekky0623.
-
Daniel's post says this:
All credit for this FAQ goes to joffenz, Erasmus, Robbyj, ﮎingulaЯiτy, and Trekky0623.
Yes. But it doesn't get entry to the FAQ without Daniels approval.
Daniel is the only official voice of TFES. He approved the FAQ. The FAQ references Rowbotham.
You see:
The opinions and beliefs expressed in any posts do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of The Flat Earth Society Forums.
And Daniel explicitly gives credit to others for writing the FAQ. Moreover, an identical (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13876.0) FAQ is elsewhere provided by TheEngineer, with the exact same accreditation. Thus it is clear that Daniel was not posting the work as his own, but that of others.
-
Acceleration would first have to be constant, and second constantly falling (acceleration) would result a zero-gravity environment.
Like in airplane simulators. And please don't come back saying we're falling upside down. That would be preposterous!
I don't understand. Do you mean there is a constant jerk that results in a zero-gravity environment? For that to be your second point, then your first point is bust, since a constant jerk would mean that your acceleration is changing (never mind what's happening to your poor velocity!) at a constant pace.
So what did you mean, exactly? Your example helped only to muddle up what you had already said.
-
Constant acceleration is definitely possible.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/acons.html
here, educate yourself.
Educate me!
You can't even use a dictionary let alone are attempting to teach what you have yet to learn, physics.
Oh really? Acceleration is the derivative of velocity. Meaning it is the slope of a distance v, time graph.
Since acceleration is the slope of the velocity and not the height, this means that they could only be the same in certain cases and it is mere coincidence.
-
Oh really? Acceleration is the derivative of velocity. Meaning it is the slope of a distance v, time graph.
Since acceleration is the slope of the velocity and not the height, this means that they could only be the same in certain cases and it is mere coincidence.
Acceleration and velocity can never be equal.
-
Oh really? Acceleration is the derivative of velocity. Meaning it is the slope of a distance v, time graph.
Since acceleration is the slope of the velocity and not the height, this means that they could only be the same in certain cases and it is mere coincidence.
Acceleration and velocity can never be equal.
I simply meant equal in magnitude. Such as someone is going 0 m/s with a constant acceleration of 0 m/s/s.
-
I simply meant equal in magnitude. Such as someone is going 0 m/s with a constant acceleration of 0 m/s/s.
It makes no sense to equate those two. They are not comparable quantities.
-
I simply meant equal in magnitude. Such as someone is going 0 m/s with a constant acceleration of 0 m/s/s.
It makes no sense to equate those two. They are not comparable quantities.
That was kind of my point. I was explaining that they are not the same thing, and if they have the same magnitude it is simply a coincidence.
-
Acceleration is the derivative of velocity.
It's been a while since I've taken calculus, but don't you have that backwards?
-
Acceleration is the derivative of velocity.
It's been a while since I've taken calculus, but don't you have that backwards?
No. A derivative is the slope of the graph, and acceleration is the slope of a velocity graph. You're probably thinking of anti derivatives which would be going the other way.
-
It's been a while since I've taken calculus, but don't you have that backwards?
Raist is correct, but to be more specific acceleration is the time derivative of velocity. This may be contrasted with - for instance - the displacement derivative of velocity, which can be shown using the chain rule to be equal to acceleration divided by velocity.
-
Thirded. Since the derivative is the slope of a line, that means:
If time is the x-axis and distance is the y-axis, speed is slope (∆y/∆x).
distance / time = speed.
If time is the x-axis and speed is the y-axis, acceleration is is the slope (∆y/∆x).
speed / time = acceleration OR distance / time /time = distance / time2 = acceleration
-
speed / time = acceleration OR distance / time /time = distance / time2 = acceleration
False.
-
Bah. No wonder I sucked a calculus.
-
speed / time = acceleration OR distance / time / time = distance / time2 = acceleration
False.
I'm using velocity and speed interchangeably cause I'm a rebel. ;)
-
speed / time = acceleration OR distance / time / time = distance / time2 = acceleration
False.
I'm using velocity and speed interchangeably cause I'm a rebel. ;)
I think he was referring to your second one. Not the speed.
-
My second what?
m/s is referring to speed?
m/s/s = m/s2?
-
My second what?
m/s/s = m/s2?
idk, he tends to be a pedant.
-
I'm using velocity and speed interchangeably cause I'm a rebel. ;)
So are you referring to the vector quantity velocity, or the scalar quantity speed? Also, distance is a scalar.
I think he was referring to your second one. Not the speed.
The second one isn't entirely correct either, thoughm/s/s = m/s2?
is perfectly valid notation.
-
The second one isn't entirely correct either, thoughm/s/s = m/s2?
is perfectly valid notation.
Valid, but annoying.
-
I love how any talk of physics deteriorates into a "look how smart I am!" contest.
-
I love how any talk of physics deteriorates into a "look how smart I am!" contest.
This. I actually took the time to make my own face palm but you responded too fast.
-
The second one isn't entirely correct either, thoughm/s/s = m/s2?
is perfectly valid notation.
Valid, but annoying.
perfectly explanatory and considering it was written for someone that doesn't know the difference between velocity and acceleration, the ms-2 notation would have confused him to no end.
-
And Daniel explicitly gives credit to others for writing the FAQ. Moreover, an identical (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13876.0) FAQ is elsewhere provided by TheEngineer, with the exact same accreditation. Thus it is clear that Daniel was not posting the work as his own, but that of others.
Yes. He credits them with writing the FAQ, but ultimately it's his site and his FAQ. The Engineer copied Daniels FAQ. (Check the dates)
Daniel is the only official voice of TFES. He approved the FAQ. The FAQ references Rowbotham.
If you can persuade Daniel to remove the references to Rowbotham from the FAQ then you might be onto something...
Not important. It clearly states that it is not his work, and that even if it were, posts on this site (including his own, hence the 'any') do not necessarily represent the views of the society itself. Honestly KillaBee, the FAQ is a subtle piece of work. If you want to tackle me on this, you'll probably need a lawyer.
Besides, the massive disclaimer at the start makes it plain that the FAQ is not meant to be a representation of 'official' beliefs, but rather just a guide for newcomers designed to avoid the need for endless 'How come I flew to Japan?' topics.
-
The second one isn't entirely correct either, thoughm/s/s = m/s2?
is perfectly valid notation.
Valid, but annoying.
It can be rather useful when breaking down large physics equations, however.
-
The second one isn't entirely correct either, thoughm/s/s = m/s2?
is perfectly valid notation.
Valid, but annoying.
It can be rather useful when breaking down large physics equations, however.
And it can be rather annoying when RoboSteve is using it just to show off how smart he is.
-
And it can be rather annoying when RoboSteve is using it just to show off how smart he is.
What? ﮎingulaЯiτy used that notation, not me.
-
The second one isn't entirely correct either, thoughm/s/s = m/s2?
is perfectly valid notation.
Valid, but annoying.
It can be rather useful when breaking down large physics equations, however.
And it can be rather annoying when RoboSteve is using it just to show off how smart he is.
.....
you're a genius.
-
It clearly states that it is not his work, and that even if it were, posts on this site (including his own, hence the 'any') do not necessarily represent the views of the society itself.
'Fraid not. The FAQ was written by Daniel
No it wasn't. He even says as much. The post has even been edited by Jack- you can see that on the post. You can't sit there and say Daniel wrote the FAQ, when he says in the FAQ that 'all credit' goes to other people. Also, I've just noticed that the FAQ posted by EnragedPenguin in this board predates the post made by Daniel, so it's now even clearer that he did not write it in the first instance, but rather copied it in order to have it posted in the Questions & Clarifications board.
So now we have Daniel saying in his post that it was written by others, and an identical post predating it and posted by someone else 9also saying it was written by others), both of which have subsequently been edited by other people, all of which proves conclusively that Daniel did not write it. Furthermore, as the disclaimer in the FAQ itself states, even when posted by Daniel it is not necessarily the official view of the Flat Earth Society. Rather, it's just what it's called- an FAQ, no more, no less.
-
It would appear that "moderators" here take threads off-topic more than anyone else... hmm...
Repeating over and over that you are not religious proves nothing.
FET requires a belief in a creator regardless of anything in the bible. Even if FET is your only false belief, it defines you as a creationist.
Embrace your faith or you will go to hell.
-
It would appear that "moderators" here take threads off-topic more than anyone else... hmm...
Repeating over and over that you are not religious proves nothing.
FET requires a belief in a creator regardless of anything in the bible. Even if FET is your only false belief, it defines you as a creationist.
Embrace your faith or you will go to hell.
No it doesn't.
-
Don't be so retarted Skeptek. FET in no way requires a belief in a creator. You oughtta ban yourself til you get some brains.
-
Don't be so retarted Skeptek. FET in no way requires a belief in a creator. You oughtta ban yourself til you get some brains.
Done.
...braaaaaiiiinnsss...
-
FET requires a belief in a creator regardless of anything in the bible. Even if FET is your only false belief, it defines you as a creationist.
What is the basis for this? Simply what IS the basis for this ridiculous claim? Why is this any more or less true of a Round Earth? Neither model requires any sort of supernatural or spiritual belief.
You can provide me with an answer after the expiry of your probationary ban for content-free posting in the post immediately above mine.
In the mean time, if anyone who is quite as much of a dumbshoe as Skeptek would like to advance an explanation of this claim in his absence, feel free.
Why does holding ANY belief about the shape of the Earth imply holding ANY belief about the existence of a creator?
-
Because the founders of the flat earth society were devout christians.
So yeah you should believe in a creator!
-
Because the founders of the flat earth society were devout christians.
So yeah you should believe in a creator!
How can you be so foolish? Newton, inventor of gravity, was also a devout Christian. Ought globularists to be devout Chrstians also?
Better yet, the first globularist, Plato, believed in state-sponsored eugenics, as well as a fantasy world of perfect ideals which beamed reality into physical objects. Ought globularists believe either of these?
-
The problem is that FET is so complicated, with one thing like the UA being needed to explain gravity and then another theory having to be bolted onto that to explain how the sun and moon stay up and then you have to invent a reason for the air staying in and how the orbits vary in some special way to make seasons, etc. It just goes on and on with endless kludges being made to the theory each time someone finds a bug in it.
FET has more patches than MS Windows.
-
The problem is that FET is so complicated, with one thing like the UA being needed to explain gravity and then another theory having to be bolted onto that to explain how the sun and moon stay up and then you have to invent a reason for the air staying in and how the orbits vary in some special way to make seasons, etc. It just goes on and on with endless kludges being made to the theory each time someone finds a bug in it.
FET has more patches than MS Windows.
The fact that RET accepts MASS as the reason why we experience gravity is their flaw, and therewith, untrue.
-
The problem is that FET is so complicated, with one thing like the UA being needed to explain gravity and then another theory having to be bolted onto that to explain how the sun and moon stay up and then you have to invent a reason for the air staying in and how the orbits vary in some special way to make seasons, etc. It just goes on and on with endless kludges being made to the theory each time someone finds a bug in it.
FET has more patches than MS Windows.
The fact that RET accepts MASS as the reason why we experience gravity is their flaw, and therewith, untrue unexplained.
Corrected for you. You wouldn't want to be seen as a liar and a troll, would you.
-
Because the founders of the flat earth society were devout christians.
So yeah you should believe in a creator!
How can you be so foolish? Newton, inventor of gravity, was also a devout Christian. Ought globularists to be devout Chrstians also?
Better yet, the first globularist, Plato, believed in state-sponsored eugenics, as well as a fantasy world of perfect ideals which beamed reality into physical objects. Ought globularists believe either of these?
I didnt say all christians think the world is flat.
Not even the bible mentions the shape of the earth in so many words it just happens that the literal catholics believe the world is flat.
99.99% of religions in the world believe the earth is a spheroid just the minority that believe its flat and so this society was born.
-
You haven't answered my question. The contraversial claim, which YOU made, is this:
Because the founders of the flat earth society were devout christians.
So yeah you should believe in a creator!
Which implies that you must wholesale accept the beliefs of whoever comes up with your other beliefs.
If that claim which you made is true, you ought to be a Christian Platonist, by your own argument. If it's false, then, well, it's false (and it is, in fact, false).
-
Eh?
I am a pure atheist and a scientist, I believe in theories and information that can be backed up by proof and can be recreated and tested unlike most of the bull you believe. I do not believe in god in either sense.
I think you are trying to nit pick and are sounding like an idiot in the process.
This society was built by literal catholics (as in taking the bible literally not as in they literally are catholics) and in believing in what they believe you must come to a similar conclusion about life and how the world was created (some big guy with a beard magicing it up out of thin air). That is the history of this society and that is what I was pointing out.
-
You have absolutely no clue. For starters, Rowbotham was a protestant, not that this fact makes a single bit of difference to the argument at hand, he could have been a hindu or a scientologist or an Oden-worshipping pagan for all I care, and for all the difference it would make to his scientific, empirical work (none).
The Catholic Church has been globularist since its inception. Do you want to challenge me on this point? Perhaps you ought to do a bit of research before pulling claims like that out of thin air.
I am not trying to nitpick, here is an exact quote by you which is exactly wrong for exactly the reason I posted.
Because the founders of the flat earth society were devout christians.
So yeah you should believe in a creator!
No, I should not believe in a creator you complete dumbshoe. I do not believe in a creator, nor should I, because in the real world, you don't have to believe all of the same things that the proponent of ONE of your beliefs holds to be true!
If that WERE TRUE; if I had to believe in a creator because Rowbotham did, then you would have to believe in Platonism because Plato did. Clearly that isn't the case, is it?
Now, please provide a different (valid and sound) answer to my original question, which was this:
Why does holding ANY belief about the shape of the Earth imply holding ANY belief about the existence of a creator?
It's a rhetorical question, because it doesn't imply anything like that, anyone with a basic grasp of reason and a secondary-school literacy level can see that you can quite well believe in one thing that somebody says and disbelieve another thing they say.
-
You have absolutely no clue. For starters, Rowbotham was a protestant, not that this fact makes a single bit of difference to the argument at hand, he could have been a hindu or a scientologist or an Oden-worshipping pagan for all I care, and for all the difference it would make to his scientific, empirical work (none).
The Catholic Church has been globularist since its inception. Do you want to challenge me on this point? Perhaps you ought to do a bit of research before pulling claims like that out of thin air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Catholic_Apostolic_Church
Maybe you should do some research!
These are Rowbothams followers and are catholic?
Show me a source which says he was a protestant? I know most of England are but there are some catholics out there!
Also he couldnt have been scientologist as it didnt exist when he was alive you tool!
If that WERE TRUE; if I had to believe in a creator because Rowbotham did, then you would have to believe in Platonism because Plato did. Clearly that isn't the case, is it?
Plato isnt the king of my belief system the scientific community is.
Anything that holds in the scientific community I believe in as it will have been tested and reproduced and scrutinised by many people. This is the exact opposite of Rowbothams work in which nothing can be repeated.
Rowboatman is the god of the flat earth myth and he obviously believed in a creator by your own admission.
Now, please provide a different (valid and sound) answer to my original question, which was this:
Why does holding ANY belief about the shape of the Earth imply holding ANY belief about the existence of a creator?
It's a rhetorical question, because it doesn't imply anything like that, anyone with a basic grasp of reason and a secondary-school literacy level can see that you can quite well believe in one thing that somebody says and disbelieve another thing they say.
If you do not believe in a God then you are likely to believe in science, if you were to believe in science then you wouldn't believe the world is flat and we wouldnt be having this conversation.
-
FETers may not be creationists, but they sure do act like them: they deny entire fields of science and replace them with their own versions, they explain the consensus of the experts via conspiracy, and any inconsistencies can simply be explained away by some magical force (in this case Dark Energy).
-
If that WERE TRUE; if I had to believe in a creator because Rowbotham did, then you would have to believe in Platonism because Plato did. Clearly that isn't the case, is it?
Plato isnt the king of my belief system the scientific community is.
Anything that holds in the scientific community I believe in as it will have been tested and reproduced and scrutinised by many people. This is the exact opposite of Rowbothams work in which nothing can be repeated.
Rowboatman is the god of the flat earth myth and he obviously believed in a creator by your own admission.
You mean like Newton? He was devout christian, and he practically invented the concept of 'gravity'. Einstein's views on 'god' are ambiguous, bet he certainly seems to have believed in some higher power. By your logic, you should either reject these theories or believe in 'god'.
-
You obviously didnt bother reading my post.
So I forgot that I read yours!
-
I am (a pure atheist and) a scientist,
No offence danwood, but you're not arguing like one.
-
You obviously didnt bother reading my post.
So I forgot that I read yours!
What? You said this:
Because the founders of the flat earth society were devout christians.
So yeah you should believe in a creator!
Newton and Einstein believed in creators, so either admit you were wrong, or admit that you too should also believe in a creator.
-
Danwood don't be so fucking stupid. If FE'ers have to believe what Rowbotham believed then RE'ers have to belueve what Plato believed, what Newton believed etc.. It can't work just one way.
-
No dont be so thick.
Both einstein and newton gave great contributions to science, their theories have stood many tests and all their work can be repeated.
There is no scientific proof for a god but if one day science turns something up and prooves his existance I will believe it.
Since you believe the earth is flat blindly why would I not assume you to be a creationist liek you forefather?
-
Newton and Einstein believed in creators, so either admit you were wrong, or admit that you too should also believe in a creator.
What century it was when Newton lived, 17? Almost everyone were christians in Europe at this time and believed God. They were raised from the beginning and teached to believe in god. And about Einstein. Can you quote something, because Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#Religious_views) don't say anything about that. You are like Tom, stuck in some historical times and can't see that times are changed.
-
What century it was when Newton lived, 17? Almost everyone were christians in Europe at this time and believed God. They were raised from the beginning and teached to believe in god. And about Einstein. Can you quote something, because Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#Religious_views) don't say anything about that. You are like Tom, stuck in some historical times and can't see that times are changed.
When Rowbotham was alive, most people were christian and it was considered extremely subversive to be an atheist. How is this any different from Newton?
As regards Einstein, did you even read the link you just gave me? Here's a quote from Einstein on that very same page: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." I'd consider that a 'higher power', wouldn't you?
No dont be so thick.
I'm not being 'thick'. You're the one making contradictory statements. You claim we must believe in a creator because Rowbotham did, but you don't believe in a creator even though Newton and Einstein did. Your point makes no sense, because you imply that we must have the same religious beliefs as other FE theorists, even though you don't hold yourself to the same standard. Now, let's try this again:
Because the founders of the flat earth society were devout christians.
So yeah you should believe in a creator!
Newton and Einstein believed in creators, so either admit you were wrong, or admit that you too should also believe in a creator.
-
Einstein believed in an "Inner" god, one that reveals himself through nature, or what Einstein thought of as the mathamathical workings of the universe. He thought of god as the beauty of the world around him and something to describe how marvellous everything around him was. It's hard to explain in the written word, but I think you get the picture.
He never said, and it is largely believed, that his God had any power in our world.
As for scientific proof of a god, it cannot be found.
God cannot be touched by science, only by logic, Which is why I am an Atheist.
-
Einstein believed in an "Inner" god, one that reveals himself through nature, or what Einstein thought of as the mathamathical workings of the universe. He thought of god as the beauty of the world around him and something to describe how marvellous everything around him was. It's hard to explain in the written word, but I think you get the picture.
He never said, and it is largely believed, that his God had any power in our world. This is different from the Christian God.
As for scientific proof of a god, it cannot be found.
God cannot be touched by science, only by logic, Which is why I am an Atheist.
-
As regards Einstein, did you even read the link you just gave me? Here's a quote from Einstein on that very same page: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." I'd consider that a 'higher power', wouldn't you?
No, Spinoza's God(The consequences of Spinoza's system also envisage a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, according to this understanding of Spinoza's system, God would be the natural world and have no personality.) doesn't seem to me as "higher power". Your quote was from year 1929, in 1954 he wrote - The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
-
That's basically what I was trying to say Zork :) Cheers.
*Off Topic*
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
Never knew how closely someone else could have restated my feelings to the finest degree! And to think that this man is without the one of the finest brains to grace our earth is something special :) This has made my day... Thanks for the quote Zork!
-
As regards Einstein, did you even read the link you just gave me? Here's a quote from Einstein on that very same page: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." I'd consider that a 'higher power', wouldn't you?
No, Spinoza's God(The consequences of Spinoza's system also envisage a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, according to this understanding of Spinoza's system, God would be the natural world and have no personality.) doesn't seem to me as "higher power". Your quote was from year 1929, in 1954 he wrote - The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
Like I said, Einstein's views are amiguous- why refer to such a god as 'Himself' (note the capitalisation), or even as a 'God'? And Einstein's theories made their mark before 1929, which was when he made the quote I made. His views probably changed over time, and I'm not attempting to criticise those views- I am an atheist, as I have already made clear in this topic. I'm just pointing out that danwood's criticism makes no sense, especially in the case of Newton, who believed very much in a christian personal god.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Catholic_Apostolic_Church
Maybe you should do some research!
These are Rowbothams followers and are catholic?
Show me a source which says he was a protestant? I know most of England are but there are some catholics out there!
Also he couldnt have been scientologist as it didnt exist when he was alive you tool!
The CCAC were followers of JOHN ALEXANDER DOWIE and WILBUR VOLIVA. They happened to believe the Earth was flat, just like Rowbotham did almost a century before. Again, happening to believe the Earth is flat doesn't mean you have to share the same religious belief as Rowbotham. How can you possibly be so clumsy in an argument? Even your fellow globularists are criticising your absurd claims!
Plato isnt the king of my belief system the scientific community is.
Rowbotham isn't "the king of" my belief system either, you dolt. Rowbotham was a key scientist in the Flat Earth movement, just as Plato was a key scientist in the Round Earth movement (he likely invented it, in fact).
Anything that holds in the scientific community I believe in as it will have been tested and reproduced and scrutinised by many people.
You admit, then, that you have blind faith in the scientific establishment. Way to go.
This is the exact opposite of Rowbothams work in which nothing can be repeated.
I can be, and it often is. Every single experiment in Earth Not a Globe is clearly described, method and all, and has been repeated by countless scholars over the last 150 years.
If you do not believe in a God then you are likely to believe in science, if you were to believe in science then you wouldn't believe the world is flat and we wouldnt be having this conversation.
I can scarcely believe that you're not a troll. If you aren't, as I suspect, a re-reg deliberately playing the fool, then I truly lament for the future of humanity.
I suspect that I have studied scientific method and the history of science to a far greater extent than you have. To claim that I "don't believe in science" is grossly presumtive, especially considering the apparent poverty of your own knowledge. To claim that believing in scientific processes themselves implies belief in any of the actual content of normal science, is one of the most ridiculous claims I have countenanced for a very long time. You obviously know absolutely nothing about the philosophy of science or its methods.
I do not believe in God. I'm not even sure what you mean by the inane notion of "believing in science", but I certainly am aware of all of the pertinent discourse on the scientific method and believe that properly executed, scientific processes can reveal truths about the universe. I also believe that the Earth is flat.
-
Rowbotham was a key scientist in the Flat Earth movement, just as Plato was a key scientist in the Round Earth movement (he likely invented it, in fact).
One thing I should say Dogplatter is that Plato didn't invent the idea of a spherical earth- it was prevalent in Greece more than a hundred years before he was born. In particular, Pythagoras and Pythagorean philosophers speculated that the earth was a sphere, as their theories were largely based on the idea of harmony (for example they believed the soul was a harmnious attunement within the body), and they felt spheres were the most harmonious of shapes.
In any case, it is hard to say whether Plato really believed in the spherical earth he postulates in the Phaedo, as it is written as a myth, and (the character) Socrates freely admits at the end of his description that it is not factual and that there is no basis for such a belief- he merely regards it as a noble contention. He believes we should use accounts to 'enchant ourselves with', and his account is less a genuine scientific contention than it is a mythical story encouraging philosophers to lead a 'good' life dedicated to wisdom. Moreover, Platos myth is so far from modern round earth theory that it is probably unfair to both to compare them. In Aristotles works however, we do see the beginnings of modern RET, as his claims are genuine geographical contentions and based on the same kind of ideas RE'ers use to this day.
-
Anything that holds in the scientific community I believe in as it will have been tested and reproduced and scrutinised by many people.
You admit, then, that you have blind faith in the scientific establishment. Way to go.
Not blind faith as the scientific establishment is backed by results and repeatable evidence unlike everything to do with the silly flat earth myth.
Basically anybody with any brains believes the earth is a spheroid, and has done since ancient times.
How was the earth created then if it wasnt by God?
In the scientific community the widely believed theory is the big bang, this is due to observations and calculations that all galaxies have certain velocities and appear to all have originated from a certain point.
This is a theory which is pretty good, unfortunately this wouldn't work in your flat world as space doesn't exist.
Please explain how your flat plain of existence was created?
-
Anything that holds in the scientific community I believe in as it will have been tested and reproduced and scrutinised by many people.
You admit, then, that you have blind faith in the scientific establishment. Way to go.
Not blind faith as the scientific establishment is backed by results and repeatable evidence unlike everything to do with the silly flat earth myth.
Basically anybody with any brains believes the earth is a spheroid, and has done since ancient times.
How was the earth created then if it wasnt by God?
In the scientific community the widely believed theory is the big bang, this is due to observations and calculations that all galaxies have certain velocities and appear to all have originated from a certain point.
This is a theory which is pretty good, unfortunately this wouldn't work in your flat world as space doesn't exist.
Please explain how your flat plain of existence was created?
.... ???
-
Sorry not that space doesnt exist but all the stars are 3100 miles up or whatever.
Either way its not the same as space so the BB theory doesnt work.
How do you believe life started?
If it was by God then yes you are a creationist. (that is its definition)
-
Can you read? We've explicitly stated that we are atheists. I suggest you visit the following sites:
www.rif.org
www.hop.com
-
Can you read? We've explicitly stated that we are atheists. I suggest you visit the following sites:
www.rif.org
www.hop.com
And Flat Earthers need to stop giving atheists a bad name.
-
If you ask me, RE'ers need to stop giving RET such a bad name.
-
If you ask me, RE'ers need to stop giving RET such a bad name.
The calculation of the approximate shape of the earth predates modern science by about 4,000 years and hasn't been seriously challenged academically since. Talk about an idea that works. Scientific discovery and the formalization of the scientific methodology have only led to confirmation after confirmation of this model. And now that we take advantage of earths orbit for satellites and have seen it from space there is NO scientific doubt that the earth is spherical. All that conjecture and conspiracy theorizing hasn't led to any credible alternative science. Congratualtions FETs: you have the same amount of scientific credibility as YEC, perhaps even less!!!
-
Can you read? We've explicitly stated that we are atheists. I suggest you visit the following sites:
www.rif.org
www.hop.com
I can read, you obviously cannot.
How do you believe life started?
If it was by God then yes you are a creationist. (that is its definition)
How do you believe life started on earth?
-
How do you believe life started on earth?
Abiogenesis.
You can stop hammering away at this tired point because there is not a single part of my worldview which involves the existence of creator. The entire notion, which appears to have been the basic point of the whole thread so far, is a ridiculous smear. It is literally just accusing my colleagues and I of believeing something which we explicitly do not.
-
Abiogenesis.
Hehehe, nice.
How do you think your flat earth was created?
(that was the question I meant to ask)
-
The big bang which is attested by background radiation did occur, but marked the inception of Universal Acceleration rather than the expansion of globularist Solar Systems (which do not exist). As far as THE Earth (there is no "my" Earth, there is only one Earth) is concerned, matter over time coagulated atop the Universal Accelerator until it reached the fairly stable state we find it in today. Three giant natural massice discs, the Sun, Moon and Antimoon, detatched from the surface of the then frozen Earth thanks to background radiation ionising the Earth's iron core and the other bodies such that their charges were equivalent, causing the latter to repel from the core and become suspended above the Earth. Regular fluctuations in Electromagnetic radiation set the bodies into a rotational pattern, and the heat of the brightest, hottest body, the Sun, melted ice directly under its path, forming the world's oceans but leaving raised promontories of ice both at the centre of its rotational locus and far enough outside that it no longer provided enough heat for melting (i.e., at the North Pole and on the Ice Wall).
-
The big bang is a theory based on radiation from other galaxies that dont exist in your view?
Also surely a load of matter would for the most basic shape which is a sphere?
(water droplets etc are spheres due to surface tention creating their basic shape)
-
The big bang is a theory based on radiation from other galaxies that dont exist in your view?
No.
Also surely a load of matter would for the most basic shape which is a sphere?
(water droplets etc are spheres due to surface tention creating their basic shape)
On what possible basis are you claiming that a sphere is "the most basic shape"? That is literally nothing more than opinion, is it? There are plenty of things in nature which are not spherical, in fact, I'm hard pressed to think of very many spherical things in nature at all. Pseudo-science at its worst, anyway: we can't extrapolate anything about the shape of the Earth from the shape of a rain drop. Scientists, Flat Earth or Round, would laugh in your face if you tried to offer that kind of ridiculous mysticism as a scientific theory.
-
The big bang cannot be used to start a flat earth. It just doesnt state that.
It relies on the fact that extrapolating what we know about the universe backwards using Einsteins theory of relativity that all galaxies once originated from a single finite point.
This is impossible without the universe.
Please stop stealing our theories and make your own.
A sphere is the most basic shape, atoms and molecules are always modeled using spheres.
Single cell organisms are spheroids, planets are spheroid due to their gravity, the sun is a spheroid due to its own gravity. etc etc.
Any liquid matter in space with no gravity would form a sphere due to surface tension and possibly its own gravity.
-
Also surely a load of matter would for the most basic shape which is a sphere?
(water droplets etc are spheres due to surface tention creating their basic shape)
On what possible basis are you claiming that a sphere is "the most basic shape"? That is literally nothing more than opinion, is it? There are plenty of things in nature which are not spherical, in fact, I'm hard pressed to think of very many spherical things in nature at all. Pseudo-science at its worst, anyway: we can't extrapolate anything about the shape of the Earth from the shape of a rain drop. Scientists, Flat Earth or Round, would laugh in your face if you tried to offer that kind of ridiculous mysticism as a scientific theory.
A sphere offers the maximum volume with the minimum surface area. Bubbles are a good example of this phenomenon.
-
The big bang which is attested by background radiation did occur, but marked the inception of Universal Acceleration rather than the expansion of globularist Solar Systems (which do not exist). As far as THE Earth (there is no "my" Earth, there is only one Earth) is concerned, matter over time coagulated atop the Universal Accelerator until it reached the fairly stable state we find it in today. Three giant natural massice discs, the Sun, Moon and Antimoon, detatched from the surface of the then frozen Earth thanks to background radiation ionising the Earth's iron core and the other bodies such that their charges were equivalent, causing the latter to repel from the core and become suspended above the Earth. Regular fluctuations in Electromagnetic radiation set the bodies into a rotational pattern, and the heat of the brightest, hottest body, the Sun, melted ice directly under its path, forming the world's oceans but leaving raised promontories of ice both at the centre of its rotational locus and far enough outside that it no longer provided enough heat for melting (i.e., at the North Pole and on the Ice Wall).
OK, that gives us a nice flat earth. Where did all of the various life forms come from?
-
Dogsplatter would you care to elaborate on your adoption of the big bang theory even though it was created by round earth scientists observing the universe and other galaxies.
-
Which is more likely - everything moving in one direction or everything moving away from the earth - Copernicus you have failed us again!
-
Neither is likely?
The Big Bang theory doesnt state everything is moving away from earth as such, more that everything in the universe is moving away from a central point as every part of the universe has a specific velocity moving away from the singularity.
-
If I'm correct, which I may not be, everything is moving away from everything else - space is expanding in the big bang model. In which case, everything is moving away from Earth in the false model.
-
"everything is moving away from earth"
is a little bit of a flat earth view on universal (meaning the universe) expansion. (Big Bang Theory)
The earth is not the centre of anything.
-
The big bang cannot be used to start a flat earth. It just doesnt state that.
It relies on the fact that extrapolating what we know about the universe backwards using Einsteins theory of relativity that all galaxies once originated from a single finite point.
This is impossible without the universe.
Well no, the background radiation which is evidence for it can be construed as attesting to a number of different possible origins. you are wrong.
Please stop stealing our theories and make your own.
Don't be so stupid. If something appears to be true, I have no reason not to believe it. And theories about the universe aren't polemically divided by ownership. You have a very na?ve conception about how science operates.
A sphere is the most basic shape, atoms and molecules are always modeled using spheres.
They're modelled using spheres, they are not spheres in the real world, as you well know, hence your careful use of words here.
Single cell organisms are spheroids
Please. They're no more spheres than cubes, they're shapeless blobs.
planets are spheroid due to their gravity, the sun is a spheroid due to its own gravity. etc etc.
A recap so far then -
Danwood: The Earth is a sphere, because other things in nature are spheres!
DP: Like what?
Danwood: The Earth!
It's called a circular argument, also known as 'begging the question', and it's a really dumb logical fallacy.
Any liquid matter in space with no gravity would form a sphere due to surface tension and possibly its own gravity.
You don't seem to have gathered that we don't believe in gravity. Oh dear.
OK, that gives us a nice flat earth. Where did all of the various life forms come from?
As I said further up this very page, they formed by abiogenesis.
"everything is moving away from earth"
is a little bit of a flat earth view on universal (meaning the universe) expansion. (Big Bang Theory)
Well suck it up, because it's what your globularist science-priests believe is attested by background radiation. If you're ready to challenge the scientific establishment on this one, then I commend you, but I have the feeling that isn't quite what you're going for.
-
As I said further up this very page, they formed by abiogenesis.
My apologies, I missed that.
-
"everything is moving away from earth"
is a little bit of a flat earth view on universal (meaning the universe) expansion. (Big Bang Theory)
The earth is not the centre of anything.
Just because the earth is not the centre, doesn't mean big bang theory (expansion etc) doesn't say everything is "moving" away from it.
Though, again, its silly to use induction to apply the observed facts of our small area to the rest of the universe. Really, a logical and mathematical flaw.
-
"everything is moving away from earth"
is a little bit of a flat earth view on universal (meaning the universe) expansion. (Big Bang Theory)
The earth is not the centre of anything.
Just because the earth is not the centre, doesn't mean big bang theory (expansion etc) doesn't say everything is "moving" away from it.
Though, again, its silly to use induction to apply the observed facts of our small area to the rest of the universe. Really, a logical and mathematical flaw.
everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale. local galactic clusters will remain bound but outside these groups, the rest will keep moving. well with current theory anyway. lots of isolated islands
-
everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale. local galactic clusters will remain bound but outside these groups, the rest will keep moving. well with current theory anyway. lots of isolated islands
What is your evidence that "everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale"?
-
everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale. local galactic clusters will remain bound but outside these groups, the rest will keep moving. well with current theory anyway. lots of isolated islands
What is your evidence that "everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale"?
Red shift. Look it up.
-
everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale. local galactic clusters will remain bound but outside these groups, the rest will keep moving. well with current theory anyway. lots of isolated islands
What is your evidence that "everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale"?
Red shift. Look it up.
Why should I do your research for you? When you have some evidence you can show us then I will listen to what you have to say.
-
everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale. local galactic clusters will remain bound but outside these groups, the rest will keep moving. well with current theory anyway. lots of isolated islands
What is your evidence that "everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale"?
Red shift. Look it up.
Why should I do your research for you? When you have some evidence you can show us then I will listen to what you have to say.
I haven't invested enough in this thread to care whether you believe it or not. That "everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale" is a well-established and very basic principle of modern cosmology based on our observation of the red shift of distant stars.
-
I haven't invested enough in this thread to care whether you believe it or not. That "everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale" is a well-established and very basic principle of modern cosmology based on our observation of the red shift of distant stars.
No it is not. Many scientists disagree over many things. Are you so arrogant as to assume that you know the opinion of every scientist on the planet?
Thought not.
You have not brought one signle piece of evidence of the so called "red shift".
-
Well... From what I know, from high school physics, the universe is moving away from a single point. But if you subscribe to theory of gravity then it sort-of explains why solar systems formed. Planets formed in round shape, due to gravity, and a photostar as the core, but, there is uncertainty in scientify community about this.
I'm not big on the FET because it seems to do what "God" is still doing now by filling in gaps of the scientific understanding, hence the term "God of the Gaps". FET also underminds alot of scientific theory as well, for instance, the FAQ seems against much scientific research and theory.
Also conspiracies never win my vote, unless minor and to believe in FET you have to belive that every alot of scientists and researchers are lying to you.
But i guess we will never know whos right until we are flying space cars.
-
I'm not big on the FET because it seems to do what "God" is still doing now by filling in gaps of the scientific understanding, hence the term "God of the Gaps".
How? How does it do this in any way? I can't help but consider you completely wrong by stating this. There are areas of unexplained phenomena in both scientific models, and as I keep reiterating, Flat Earth Theory has zero to do with God or religion, either by association of content or similarity of argument.
FET also underminds alot of scientific theory as well, for instance, the FAQ seems against much scientific research and theory.
It is in heavy disagreement with a lot of existing theories. However, you're mistaken if you think that the existing body of contemporary science is some impregnable fortress of pure truth. Science is a constantly shifting body of knowledge which adapts and changes according to evidence, popular acceptance and other influential forces. FET is part of that process.
Also conspiracies never win my vote, unless minor and to believe in FET you have to belive that every alot of scientists and researchers are lying to you.
Or are, on the whole just earnestly wrong. It's not so hard to believe that many (not all) scientists are mistaken, just as they were about other now debunked theories.
-
I haven't invested enough in this thread to care whether you believe it or not. That "everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale" is a well-established and very basic principle of modern cosmology based on our observation of the red shift of distant stars.
No it is not. Many scientists disagree over many things. Are you so arrogant as to assume that you know the opinion of every scientist on the planet?
Thought not.
You have not brought one signle piece of evidence of the so called "red shift".
HI imaging the low red-shift cosmic web
New Astronomy Reviews, Volume 48, Issues 11-12, December 2004, Pages 1271-1274
Robert Braun
The MAGIC telescope project for gamma ray astronomy in the 15 to 300 GeV energy range
Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements, Volume 48, Issues 1-3, May 1996, Pages 494-496
E. Lorenz
The low-frequency array (LOFAR): opening a new window on the universe
Planetary and Space Science, Volume 52, Issue 15, December 2004, Pages 1343-1349
N.E. Kassim, T.J.W. Lazio, P.S. Ray, P.C. Crane, B.C. Hicks, K.P. Stewart, A.S. Cohen, W.M. Lane
Gamma-Ray Astronomy
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 2004, Pages 397-432
J. Gregory Stacy, W. Thomas Vestrand
Low-temperature detectors in X-ray astronomy
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, Volume 520, Issues 1-3, 11 March 2004, Pages 354-358
F. Scott Porter
Radio Astronomy, Planetary
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 2004, Pages 687-712
Samuel Gulkis, Imke de Pater
Millimeter Astronomy
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 2004, Pages 853-871
Jeffrey G. Mangum
-
I haven't invested enough in this thread to care whether you believe it or not. That "everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale" is a well-established and very basic principle of modern cosmology based on our observation of the red shift of distant stars.
No it is not. Many scientists disagree over many things. Are you so arrogant as to assume that you know the opinion of every scientist on the planet?
Thought not.
You have not brought one signle piece of evidence of the so called "red shift".
HI imaging the low red-shift cosmic web
New Astronomy Reviews, Volume 48, Issues 11-12, December 2004, Pages 1271-1274
Robert Braun
The MAGIC telescope project for gamma ray astronomy in the 15 to 300 GeV energy range
Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements, Volume 48, Issues 1-3, May 1996, Pages 494-496
E. Lorenz
The low-frequency array (LOFAR): opening a new window on the universe
Planetary and Space Science, Volume 52, Issue 15, December 2004, Pages 1343-1349
N.E. Kassim, T.J.W. Lazio, P.S. Ray, P.C. Crane, B.C. Hicks, K.P. Stewart, A.S. Cohen, W.M. Lane
Gamma-Ray Astronomy
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 2004, Pages 397-432
J. Gregory Stacy, W. Thomas Vestrand
Low-temperature detectors in X-ray astronomy
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, Volume 520, Issues 1-3, 11 March 2004, Pages 354-358
F. Scott Porter
Radio Astronomy, Planetary
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 2004, Pages 687-712
Samuel Gulkis, Imke de Pater
Millimeter Astronomy
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 2004, Pages 853-871
Jeffrey G. Mangum
I'm sorry all you have done is provided a list of some books. Anyone can do that.
http://www.amazon.com/Da-Vinci-Code-Dan-Brown/dp/1400079179/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246893296&sr=8-4
The Da Vinci Code (Paperback)
by Dan Brown
(pages 96-104)
-
I haven't invested enough in this thread to care whether you believe it or not. That "everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale" is a well-established and very basic principle of modern cosmology based on our observation of the red shift of distant stars.
No it is not. Many scientists disagree over many things. Are you so arrogant as to assume that you know the opinion of every scientist on the planet?
Thought not.
You have not brought one signle piece of evidence of the so called "red shift".
HI imaging the low red-shift cosmic web
New Astronomy Reviews, Volume 48, Issues 11-12, December 2004, Pages 1271-1274
Robert Braun
The MAGIC telescope project for gamma ray astronomy in the 15 to 300 GeV energy range
Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements, Volume 48, Issues 1-3, May 1996, Pages 494-496
E. Lorenz
The low-frequency array (LOFAR): opening a new window on the universe
Planetary and Space Science, Volume 52, Issue 15, December 2004, Pages 1343-1349
N.E. Kassim, T.J.W. Lazio, P.S. Ray, P.C. Crane, B.C. Hicks, K.P. Stewart, A.S. Cohen, W.M. Lane
Gamma-Ray Astronomy
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 2004, Pages 397-432
J. Gregory Stacy, W. Thomas Vestrand
Low-temperature detectors in X-ray astronomy
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, Volume 520, Issues 1-3, 11 March 2004, Pages 354-358
F. Scott Porter
Radio Astronomy, Planetary
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 2004, Pages 687-712
Samuel Gulkis, Imke de Pater
Millimeter Astronomy
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 2004, Pages 853-871
Jeffrey G. Mangum
I'm sorry all you have done is provided a list of some books. Anyone can do that.
http://www.amazon.com/Da-Vinci-Code-Dan-Brown/dp/1400079179/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246893296&sr=8-4
The Da Vinci Code (Paperback)
by Dan Brown
(pages 96-104)
What's that book got to do with the books dyno listed?
-
What's that book got to do with the books dyno listed?
Exactly my point. All we are doing is listing book titles.
-
What's that book got to do with the books dyno listed?
Exactly my point. All we are doing is listing book titles.
Gee, and here I thought that dyno was citing references in scientific journals. Silly me.
-
What's that book got to do with the books dyno listed?
Exactly my point. All we are doing is listing book titles.
Gee, and here I thought that dyno was citing references in scientific journals. Silly me.
Didn't look like it to me.
-
What's that book got to do with the books dyno listed?
Exactly my point. All we are doing is listing book titles.
Gee, and here I thought that dyno was citing references in scientific journals. Silly me.
Didn't look like it to me.
Maybe you should get a parent or older friend to read his post for you and explain it in words you can understand.
-
Maybe you should get a parent or older friend to read his post for you and explain it in words you can understand.
Are you posting insults? How original.
-
What's that book got to do with the books dyno listed?
Exactly my point. All we are doing is listing book titles.
Gee, and here I thought that dyno was citing references in scientific journals. Silly me.
Didn't look like it to me.
Then perhaps you should brush up on the topic: http://library.duke.edu/research/citing/workscited/printedjournal.html
-
What's that book got to do with the books dyno listed?
Exactly my point. All we are doing is listing book titles.
Gee, and here I thought that dyno was citing references in scientific journals. Silly me.
Didn't look like it to me.
Then perhaps you should brush up on the topic: http://library.duke.edu/research/citing/workscited/printedjournal.html
No. Just quoting random academic journals isn't sufficient.
In his acclaimed work Rowbotham successfully proved the earth was flat yet you continue to deny this concrete evidence.
-
Are you an angry REer's alt?
-
Are you an angry REer's alt?
I am an open minded scientist, who on studying the evidence has found the earth to be flat.
-
What's that book got to do with the books dyno listed?
Exactly my point. All we are doing is listing book titles.
Gee, and here I thought that dyno was citing references in scientific journals. Silly me.
Didn't look like it to me.
Then perhaps you should brush up on the topic: http://library.duke.edu/research/citing/workscited/printedjournal.html
No. Just quoting random academic journals isn't sufficient.
It's better than quoting Rowbotham.
In his acclaimed work Rowbotham successfully proved the earth was flat yet you continue to deny this concrete evidence.
No, he didn't successfully prove the earth was flat. If he had, we wouldn't have a space program (fake or otherwise) now would we?
-
What's that book got to do with the books dyno listed?
Exactly my point. All we are doing is listing book titles.
Gee, and here I thought that dyno was citing references in scientific journals. Silly me.
Didn't look like it to me.
Then perhaps you should brush up on the topic: http://library.duke.edu/research/citing/workscited/printedjournal.html
No. Just quoting random academic journals isn't sufficient.
It's better than quoting Rowbotham.
In his acclaimed work Rowbotham successfully proved the earth was flat yet you continue to deny this concrete evidence.
No, he didn't successfully prove the earth was flat. If he had, we wouldn't have a space program (fake or otherwise) now would we?
Lots of times important scientific facts are overlooked. There is so much published it is easy for something to fall through the cracks... The space program has proven nothing... And it never will because it is all CGI
-
Lots of times important scientific facts are overlooked. There is so much published it is easy for something to fall through the cracks... The space program has proven nothing... And it never will because it is all CGI
If Rowbotham had so convincingly proven the earth to be flat, then why has mainstream science not yet accepted such an obvious truth? Surely the experiments that Rowbotham had carried out are plain enough that there is no possible way that results could be denied.
-
If Rowbotham had so convincingly proven the earth to be flat, then why has mainstream science not yet accepted such an obvious truth? Surely the experiments that Rowbotham had carried out are plain enough that there is no possible way that results could be denied.
Good question.
There is a simple answer. Mr Rowbotham had no intention of trying to convince mainstream scientists of his day. Mr Rowbotham's sole intention was to try and convince gullible people so that he could sell his book and some snake oil.. He may have succeeded on both counts.
-
Lots of times important scientific facts are overlooked. There is so much published it is easy for something to fall through the cracks... The space program has proven nothing... And it never will because it is all CGI
If Rowbotham had so convincingly proven the earth to be flat, then why has mainstream science not yet accepted such an obvious truth? Surely the experiments that Rowbotham had carried out are plain enough that there is no possible way that results could be denied.
Because the majority of the public isn't interested in science. A huge percentage of the public doesn't even know RE fundamentals, how should FE resurface?
-
Lots of times important scientific facts are overlooked. There is so much published it is easy for something to fall through the cracks... The space program has proven nothing... And it never will because it is all CGI
If Rowbotham had so convincingly proven the earth to be flat, then why has mainstream science not yet accepted such an obvious truth? Surely the experiments that Rowbotham had carried out are plain enough that there is no possible way that results could be denied.
Because the majority of the public isn't interested in science. A huge percentage of the public doesn't even know RE fundamentals, how should FE resurface?
What about the majority of the scientific community that does know RE fundamentals? Why haven't they been convinced yet that the earth is flat?
-
What about the majority of the scientific community that does know RE fundamentals? Why haven't they been convinced yet that the earth is flat?
They are convinced, yet they propagate a lie. It is established fact that a great many "scientists" are just paid goons of NASA. Those that aren't are just idiot followers.
-
It is established fact that a great many "scientists" are just paid goons of NASA.
Who established that fact?
-
Oh, this will be interesting to hear.
-
im listing articles in published scientific journals for peer review.
you can access any of them and have a read about red shift. you wanted evidence, there you go.
it would violate copyright laws to paste the contents here and i need my access intact.
-
im listing articles in published scientific journals for peer review.
you can access any of them and have a read about red shift. you wanted evidence, there you go.
it would violate copyright laws to paste the contents here and i need my access intact.
Fair use does allow for the posting of relevant excerpts for educational purposes, as long as they are properly cited.
-
Yes it does. Can't he access them himself?
I'm fairly confident I'd receive a lot of tl;dr replies if I posted a swathe of content.
-
True enough.