The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: amazed on May 20, 2010, 07:10:03 AM

Title: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: amazed on May 20, 2010, 07:10:03 AM
I've been on the forum only a short while, but I've learned some interesting things about the Flat Earth Society in that time. I have seen most of these FET'ers basically make either completely illogical arguments (evolution, ancient meaning of earth, etc) or else show blatant hypocrisy and double-standards (disbelieving scientific community data while asking others to believe their fanciful imaginations). As for the conspiracy possibility... even that is approached very sloppily and without showing hard facts and evidence (which is apparently the basis for the movement in the first place).

There really is only one legitimate and possibly noble FET position... and that is the ruggedly individualistic position of "I only believe what I can confirm myself by my limited means," which includes looking out the window and my daily experiences. Everyone is entitled to take this position... they may decide that TV, satellite imagery, scientific theories etc are fine for everyone else but for them, they will only believe what they can hold in their hands or see with their eyes. That can be considered a way of life, and a noble (if limited) one. There is nothing wrong with that, and that person will not be lying to themselves or others.

In addition, if they truly hold to that belief... their world really *IS* flat... on a small scale, the flat earth approximation is true (ignoring looking at the sea horizon with a telescope, using trig on tall structures etc). And due to the equivalence principle yes you can consider gravity itself to be simple a uniform acceleration field (although I dont know why someone with this kind of belief would care about gravity or physics).

This is actually exactly where the ancients were in their understanding of the world, and they were quite content with it... they had interesting mythologies to explain the things they could not understand, but this modern FET group, since they supposedly only believe that which they can actually see or touch, would be hypocrites if they started creating mythology. They, of course, are welcome to entertain some higher sciences but again it's hard to imagine what they want with higher sciences... any attempt to make hypothetical models is fine, but it will only apply to them because they choose to restrict themselves in their scientific approach and do not agree with or consider seriously the data that the RET'ers have... it would be like a blind man arguing with a sighted man about the difference between red and green... that is why the "debates" here end up becoming pointless, it's hardly a debate when one side does not accept the basis of how the other side has developed his science and models... it seems to end up with the FET'ers going back on their own ideology and starting to create a mythology to support their belief system, even though "myths" are against the basis of their belief system in the first place (i.e., rejecting that which they cannot confirm with their own eyes/hands).
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Mr Pseudonym on May 20, 2010, 07:46:30 AM
I only believe what I can confirm myself by my limited means.

This is where you went wrong. 
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: amazed on May 20, 2010, 08:40:53 AM
I only believe what I can confirm myself by my limited means.

This is where you went wrong.  

Is it too much to ask people to respond with enough information that they in turn can receive a response. There are many ways to interpret your statement. Would you care to clarify your meaning?

Just to clarify what I meant, I was saying that from what I have seen, at least a few FET'ers use this reasoning to at once dismiss other evidence and also build their case. I also state that it is a perfectly acceptable manner of thinking and living, though limited.

I am also saying that it is the only "noble" or "legitimate" FET stance... any other FET stance is bogus and is a result of double-standards/hypocrisy (though perhaps unintentional).
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Lorddave on May 20, 2010, 12:38:53 PM
Meh.
Many FEers are just trolls pretending to be believers.
And those who do believe follow basically what you said.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Ellipsis on May 20, 2010, 03:56:49 PM
You hit the nail right on its flat head.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 20, 2010, 04:47:12 PM
I've been on the forum only a short while, but I've learned some interesting things about the Flat Earth Society in that time. I have seen most of these FET'ers basically make either completely illogical arguments (evolution, ancient meaning of earth, etc)

No, on the contrary, I do not think you will find a single illogical argument by a Flat Earther, as we are highly versed in logic. Are you instead trying to accuse our premises of being false? I assure you our arguments themselves are valid.


or else show blatant hypocrisy and double-standards (disbelieving scientific community data while asking others to believe their fanciful imaginations).

Well, now I'm not sure that this is as negative a thing as you wish to paint it. Would it not be far more dogmatic to oughtright accept or outright reject every scientific dogma, rather than judge each independently on their merits (which is what FEers inevitably find themselves doing)?

As for the conspiracy possibility... even that is approached very sloppily and without showing hard facts and evidence (which is apparently the basis for the movement in the first place).

Since you have not been on the board long I cannot blame you for not having read extensively on our past research, and I can appreciate how based on current work you might not be sastisfied, but in fact you will come to learn that a great deal of the most rigorous scholarship on the Conspiracy and other such subjects has been conducted already. My learned zetetic brother Tom Bishop and I conducted a study of great detail into the inner obscenities of the Conspiracy only a couple of years ago. It is available here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30418.0


There really is only one legitimate and possibly noble FET position... and that is the ruggedly individualistic position of "I only believe what I can confirm myself by my limited means," which includes looking out the window and my daily experiences. Everyone is entitled to take this position... they may decide that TV, satellite imagery, scientific theories etc are fine for everyone else but for them, they will only believe what they can hold in their hands or see with their eyes. That can be considered a way of life, and a noble (if limited) one. There is nothing wrong with that, and that person will not be lying to themselves or others.

I assure you that I am both rugged and individualistic, as I am certain Messrs. Bishop, Davis, Shenton, &c., are, and I would also deign us noble by your exacting standard. For we do also believe just that which you have laid out, this is the zetetic creed - unwavering dedication to knowing only that which we may know. And yet so much may be perfectly known through this manner of study. A great man once said:

Quote
Beauty, splendor, grandeur, greatness. No adjective can describe the beauty that is perfection.  Such perfection can be attributed to the meditations in which we flat earth philosophers prescribe to.

Thus I believe you would call us noble if you knew the truth.

In addition, if they truly hold to that belief... their world really *IS* flat... on a small scale, the flat earth approximation is true (ignoring looking at the sea horizon with a telescope, using trig on tall structures etc). And due to the equivalence principle yes you can consider gravity itself to be simple a uniform acceleration field (although I dont know why someone with this kind of belief would care about gravity or physics).

Are we justified in the doctrine that the large does not imitate the small?

This is actually exactly where the ancients were in their understanding of the world, and they were quite content with it... they had interesting mythologies to explain the things they could not understand, but this modern FET group, since they supposedly only believe that which they can actually see or touch, would be hypocrites if they started creating mythology. They, of course, are welcome to entertain some higher sciences but again it's hard to imagine what they want with higher sciences... any attempt to make hypothetical models is fine, but it will only apply to them because they choose to restrict themselves in their scientific approach and do not agree with or consider seriously the data that the RET'ers have... it would be like a blind man arguing with a sighted man about the difference between red and green... that is why the "debates" here end up becoming pointless, it's hardly a debate when one side does not accept the basis of how the other side has developed his science and models... it seems to end up with the FET'ers going back on their own ideology and starting to create a mythology to support their belief system, even though "myths" are against the basis of their belief system in the first place (i.e., rejecting that which they cannot confirm with their own eyes/hands).

The hypothetical is the reserve of the globularist fantasist. When beliefs are reduced to the logical outcomes of that which may be truly known, there lieth the wisdom of Thales.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Johnny Walker on May 20, 2010, 04:48:49 PM
I've been on the forum only a short while, but I've learned some interesting things about the Flat Earth Society in that time. I have seen most of these FET'ers basically make either completely illogical arguments (evolution, ancient meaning of earth, etc) or else show blatant hypocrisy and double-standards (disbelieving scientific community data while asking others to believe their fanciful imaginations). As for the conspiracy possibility... even that is approached very sloppily and without showing hard facts and evidence (which is apparently the basis for the movement in the first place).

There really is only one legitimate and possibly noble FET position... and that is the ruggedly individualistic position of "I only believe what I can confirm myself by my limited means," which includes looking out the window and my daily experiences. Everyone is entitled to take this position... they may decide that TV, satellite imagery, scientific theories etc are fine for everyone else but for them, they will only believe what they can hold in their hands or see with their eyes. That can be considered a way of life, and a noble (if limited) one. There is nothing wrong with that, and that person will not be lying to themselves or others.

In addition, if they truly hold to that belief... their world really *IS* flat... on a small scale, the flat earth approximation is true (ignoring looking at the sea horizon with a telescope, using trig on tall structures etc). And due to the equivalence principle yes you can consider gravity itself to be simple a uniform acceleration field (although I dont know why someone with this kind of belief would care about gravity or physics).

This is actually exactly where the ancients were in their understanding of the world, and they were quite content with it... they had interesting mythologies to explain the things they could not understand, but this modern FET group, since they supposedly only believe that which they can actually see or touch, would be hypocrites if they started creating mythology. They, of course, are welcome to entertain some higher sciences but again it's hard to imagine what they want with higher sciences... any attempt to make hypothetical models is fine, but it will only apply to them because they choose to restrict themselves in their scientific approach and do not agree with or consider seriously the data that the RET'ers have... it would be like a blind man arguing with a sighted man about the difference between red and green... that is why the "debates" here end up becoming pointless, it's hardly a debate when one side does not accept the basis of how the other side has developed his science and models... it seems to end up with the FET'ers going back on their own ideology and starting to create a mythology to support their belief system, even though "myths" are against the basis of their belief system in the first place (i.e., rejecting that which they cannot confirm with their own eyes/hands).


*Thumbs up*
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 20, 2010, 05:08:19 PM
John Walker, please make sure your posts offer substantive contribution to each debate.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: amazed on May 20, 2010, 05:27:05 PM
I've been on the forum only a short while, but I've learned some interesting things about the Flat Earth Society in that time. I have seen most of these FET'ers basically make either completely illogical arguments (evolution, ancient meaning of earth, etc)

No, on the contrary, I do not think you will find a single illogical argument by a Flat Earther, as we are highly versed in logic. Are you instead trying to accuse our premises of being false? I assure you our arguments themselves are valid.


or else show blatant hypocrisy and double-standards (disbelieving scientific community data while asking others to believe their fanciful imaginations).

Well, now I'm not sure that this is as negative a thing as you wish to paint it. Would it not be far more dogmatic to oughtright accept or outright reject every scientific dogma, rather than judge each independently on their merits (which is what FEers inevitably find themselves doing)?

As for the conspiracy possibility... even that is approached very sloppily and without showing hard facts and evidence (which is apparently the basis for the movement in the first place).

Since you have not been on the board long I cannot blame you for not having read extensively on our past research, and I can appreciate how based on current work you might not be sastisfied, but in fact you will come to learn that a great deal of the most rigorous scholarship on the Conspiracy and other such subjects has been conducted already. My learned zetetic brother Tom Bishop and I conducted a study of great detail into the inner obscenities of the Conspiracy only a couple of years ago. It is available here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30418.0


There really is only one legitimate and possibly noble FET position... and that is the ruggedly individualistic position of "I only believe what I can confirm myself by my limited means," which includes looking out the window and my daily experiences. Everyone is entitled to take this position... they may decide that TV, satellite imagery, scientific theories etc are fine for everyone else but for them, they will only believe what they can hold in their hands or see with their eyes. That can be considered a way of life, and a noble (if limited) one. There is nothing wrong with that, and that person will not be lying to themselves or others.

I assure you that I am both rugged and individualistic, as I am certain Messrs. Bishop, Davis, Shenton, &c., are, and I would also deign us noble by your exacting standard. For we do also believe just that which you have laid out, this is the zetetic creed - unwavering dedication to knowing only that which we may know. And yet so much may be perfectly known through this manner of study. A great man once said:

Quote
Beauty, splendor, grandeur, greatness. No adjective can describe the beauty that is perfection.  Such perfection can be attributed to the meditations in which we flat earth philosophers prescribe to.

Thus I believe you would call us noble if you knew the truth.

In addition, if they truly hold to that belief... their world really *IS* flat... on a small scale, the flat earth approximation is true (ignoring looking at the sea horizon with a telescope, using trig on tall structures etc). And due to the equivalence principle yes you can consider gravity itself to be simple a uniform acceleration field (although I dont know why someone with this kind of belief would care about gravity or physics).

Are we justified in the doctrine that the large does not imitate the small?

This is actually exactly where the ancients were in their understanding of the world, and they were quite content with it... they had interesting mythologies to explain the things they could not understand, but this modern FET group, since they supposedly only believe that which they can actually see or touch, would be hypocrites if they started creating mythology. They, of course, are welcome to entertain some higher sciences but again it's hard to imagine what they want with higher sciences... any attempt to make hypothetical models is fine, but it will only apply to them because they choose to restrict themselves in their scientific approach and do not agree with or consider seriously the data that the RET'ers have... it would be like a blind man arguing with a sighted man about the difference between red and green... that is why the "debates" here end up becoming pointless, it's hardly a debate when one side does not accept the basis of how the other side has developed his science and models... it seems to end up with the FET'ers going back on their own ideology and starting to create a mythology to support their belief system, even though "myths" are against the basis of their belief system in the first place (i.e., rejecting that which they cannot confirm with their own eyes/hands).

The hypothetical is the reserve of the globularist fantasist. When beliefs are reduced to the logical outcomes of that which may be truly known, there lieth the wisdom of Thales.

Pardon my response for being fragmented. I've not yet figured out how to break up a quote into several sections in order to respond to it point by point. I will still respond to it point by point but it will be more difficult to follow.

Thanks for your response. It is actually quite nice to see an FET believer who actually has some depth of character and thought. We disagree in our conclusions, but at least, I can respect your conclusions.

As for illogical arguments by FET believers, I'll give you one brief example.. attempting to prove that evolution supports the existence of a flat Earth. This is illogical because evolutionary theory cannot be used in this way. Evolutionary theory merely gives one links and transitions between the various fossils and findings at hand... so if FET believers develop a theory based on their finding of a flat earth, it holds no meaning for the RET believers who base their evolutionary theory on a round earth. It is silly and illogical of them to think it would have any important in a debate.

Another example is trying to prove that since the word Earth relates to a flat piece of land, therefore, the Earth is flat. That actually transcends illogical and enters the territory of the idiotic.

I agree that it is not necessary to blindly swallow scientific dogma. This is a very harsh guideline to follow in that most scientific data would have to be discarded due to limitations in the individual's expertise and materials to confirm testing.. but nonetheless it is an ideal which is legitimate. However, how can one who holds such harsh ideals for the acceptance of scientific data turn around and then start mythologizing about sky mirrors and ice walls and all other sorts of wholly unsubstantiated phenomena? Why not hold those ideas to the same rigid standards? That is what I call hypocrisy.

I don't want to ramble on since I can't figure out how to respond point by point, but thanks for your response.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 20, 2010, 05:46:53 PM
Thanks for your response. It is actually quite nice to see an FET believer who actually has some depth of character and thought. We disagree in our conclusions, but at least, I can respect your conclusions.

You are welcome my friend. In your attitude you surpass many other globularists who post here seeking answers; I commend you. I am glad we are entering this voyage of discovery with mutual respect and understanding.

As for illogical arguments by FET believers, I'll give you one brief example.. attempting to prove that evolution supports the existence of a flat Earth. This is illogical because evolutionary theory cannot be used in this way. Evolutionary theory merely gives one links and transitions between the various fossils and findings at hand... so if FET believers develop a theory based on their finding of a flat earth, it holds no meaning for the RET believers who base their evolutionary theory on a round earth. It is silly and illogical of them to think it would have any important in a debate.

That is interesting, and not a response which I have yet encountered. However, I wish to ask of you, in what way are the theories of evolution based on, or reliant on, the Round Earth theory? I am not so sure that they are, we should establish this before proceding.

Another example is trying to prove that since the word Earth relates to a flat piece of land, therefore, the Earth is flat. That actually transcends illogical and enters the territory of the idiotic.

I am not sure which of my esteemed colleagues has made this argument. Now, of course, there are two possible senses in which the Earth does relate to a flat piece of land. The first, in that by our claims the Earth is a flat piece of land. Now, if this were the spirit of the argument, I agree it would be illogical. It would be a circular argument of the worst kind, and the argument would fall flat.

Now, there is a second sense of the saying, in which the Earth relates to a piece of flat land. Now I am not sure that this second sense is indeed illogical. I would ask you to reconsider - the Earth relates to a piece of flat land, because for every piece of land, the Earth relates to that land, and since a flat piece of land is a piece of land, the Earth relates to a flat piece of land.

It is an argument of following form:
Let L(x) = x is a piece of [L]and
Let R(x) = the Earth [R]elates to x
Let f = a [F]lat piece of land

∀xL(x) → R(x)
L(f)

R(f)

Now, this is the logical operation known as the modus ponens, and I assure you it is logically valid.

So you see the claim that the Earth relates to a piece of flat land is not illogical when we consider the other premises revealed to us by thorough zetetic inquiry. My zetetic meditations have revealed to me that the Earth relates to every piece of land, and that a flat piece of land is a piece of land. I suspect that your zetetic meditations will offer you similar conclusions.

I agree that it is not necessary to blindly swallow scientific dogma. This is a very harsh guideline to follow in that most scientific data would have to be discarded due to limitations in the individual's expertise and materials to confirm testing.. but nonetheless it is an ideal which is legitimate.

Ah yes, yes, and that is why there is so much work to be done by I and my zetetic brothers. Some of us must discover the zetetic meditations, others must construct the logical derivations. So you see zeteticism is a science founded entirely on logic.

However, how can one who holds such harsh ideals for the acceptance of scientific data turn around and then start mythologizing about sky mirrors and ice walls and all other sorts of wholly unsubstantiated phenomena? Why not hold those ideas to the same rigid standards? That is what I call hypocrisy.

And yet these are not mythologies, these things are the derivations of zetetic science. Every belief is held to the same standards in zetetic study. To the uninitiated these seem eclectic and mysterious. To those in full development of the zetetic and logical faculties, combined in harmony, this process is transparent and absolute.

I hope this post is of great help to you my friend. Go well in study.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on May 20, 2010, 06:16:54 PM
@James

If your logic is so flawless, then why have you said that moonlight is harmful, plants don't need light, optical illusions aren't real, that there is a millions of km tall dome beyond the icewall, and that the conspiracy has genetically engineered trees and modified paper so that ink moves around on them. Or the argument that because ancient people implied that the earth was flat in the word earth means that it must be so. Or the argument that Australia doesn't exist. Or the argument that the combination of two raindrops is one raindrop proves that 1+1=1 rendering math invalid.

Quite a bit of the stuff here is illogical and outright absurd, but no more or less than what you would find on any other internet forum.

TL;DR you may not be idiots, but you're no better than the rest of us

It is an argument of following form:
Let L(x) = x is a piece of [L]and
Let R(x) = the Earth [R]elates to x
Let f = a [F]lat piece of land

∀xL(x) → R(x)
L(f)

R(f)

could you write that in english, tried to search for what ∀ meant, but nothing appeared in google.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying if land has element x, then earth has element x.
land has flatness, therefore Earth has flatness. and this is correct. but the problem is, that this doesn't extend to
If land is x, then Earth is x, which is a false premise.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Catchpa on May 21, 2010, 04:57:39 AM
When thevoiceofreason says "you" he means it in its plural form, and is referring to FE'ers as a whole.

I've been on the forum only a short while, but I've learned some interesting things about the Flat Earth Society in that time. I have seen most of these FET'ers basically make either completely illogical arguments (evolution, ancient meaning of earth, etc)

No, on the contrary, I do not think you will find a single illogical argument by a Flat Earther, as we are highly versed in logic. Are you instead trying to accuse our premises of being false? I assure you our arguments themselves are valid.

This is coming from the guy who used this..

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/beard-comparison.png)
(http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030619/biz1.jpg)(http://sharpiron.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/devil-with-pitchfork.jpg)

.. for evidence of the satanic conspiracy.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Space Tourist on May 21, 2010, 05:08:35 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%88%80
Quote
The symbol ? bears the same shape of ? (a capital turned A) and is used in mathematics and logic to identify universal quantification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 21, 2010, 07:38:32 AM
@James

If your logic is so flawless, then why have you said that moonlight is harmful, plants don't need light, optical illusions aren't real, that there is a millions of km tall dome beyond the icewall, and that the conspiracy has genetically engineered trees and modified paper so that ink moves around on them. Or the argument that because ancient people implied that the earth was flat in the word earth means that it must be so. Or the argument that Australia doesn't exist. Or the argument that the combination of two raindrops is one raindrop proves that 1+1=1 rendering math invalid.

Quite a bit of the stuff here is illogical and outright absurd, but no more or less than what you would find on any other internet forum.

Well, none of those claims are illogical. Do you know what illogical means? Tell me what it is for something to be illogical.

could you write that in english, tried to search for what ∀ meant, but nothing appeared in google.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying if land has element x, then earth has element x.
land has flatness, therefore Earth has flatness. and this is correct. but the problem is, that this doesn't extend to
If land is x, then Earth is x, which is a false premise.

No, you have misunderstood my argument entirely, because you don't have even a basic grasp of the fundaments of logic. Why do you pretend to be able to distinguish what is and is not logical, if you don't even remotely understand logic? Why should anyone trust you on matters you claim to know nothing about?

Zeteticists are well-versed in logic and zetetic meditations, these two procedures combined reveal to us the truths of science which we espouse. I am now not surprised that you have such trouble with our system of scientific discovery, because you are not logically competent. It is a great thing to know what is logical and what is illogical, and I advise you to learn.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Lorddave on May 21, 2010, 01:03:39 PM
@James

If your logic is so flawless, then why have you said that moonlight is harmful, plants don't need light, optical illusions aren't real, that there is a millions of km tall dome beyond the icewall, and that the conspiracy has genetically engineered trees and modified paper so that ink moves around on them. Or the argument that because ancient people implied that the earth was flat in the word earth means that it must be so. Or the argument that Australia doesn't exist. Or the argument that the combination of two raindrops is one raindrop proves that 1+1=1 rendering math invalid.

Quite a bit of the stuff here is illogical and outright absurd, but no more or less than what you would find on any other internet forum.

Well, none of those claims are illogical. Do you know what illogical means? Tell me what it is for something to be illogical.

could you write that in english, tried to search for what ∀ meant, but nothing appeared in google.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying if land has element x, then earth has element x.
land has flatness, therefore Earth has flatness. and this is correct. but the problem is, that this doesn't extend to
If land is x, then Earth is x, which is a false premise.

No, you have misunderstood my argument entirely, because you don't have even a basic grasp of the fundaments of logic. Why do you pretend to be able to distinguish what is and is not logical, if you don't even remotely understand logic? Why should anyone trust you on matters you claim to know nothing about?

Zeteticists are well-versed in logic and zetetic meditations, these two procedures combined reveal to us the truths of science which we espouse. I am now not surprised that you have such trouble with our system of scientific discovery, because you are not logically competent. It is a great thing to know what is logical and what is illogical, and I advise you to learn.

I know what logic is.

Logic is using a series of True or False statements to evaluate a larger statement for it's validity. 

Q and P, Q or P, Not Q, Not P, Not Q and P, Not Q or P. Q And Not P, Q or Not P.
You also have XOR but that's really just a combination of AND and OR to produce an "P OR Q  AND NOT(P AND Q)"
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on May 21, 2010, 01:41:06 PM
Indeed James, many who claim to know everything about logic lack even the ability to use it and need to edify themselves.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 21, 2010, 05:27:32 PM
@James

If your logic is so flawless, then why have you said that moonlight is harmful, plants don't need light, optical illusions aren't real, that there is a millions of km tall dome beyond the icewall, and that the conspiracy has genetically engineered trees and modified paper so that ink moves around on them. Or the argument that because ancient people implied that the earth was flat in the word earth means that it must be so. Or the argument that Australia doesn't exist. Or the argument that the combination of two raindrops is one raindrop proves that 1+1=1 rendering math invalid.

Quite a bit of the stuff here is illogical and outright absurd, but no more or less than what you would find on any other internet forum.

Well, none of those claims are illogical. Do you know what illogical means? Tell me what it is for something to be illogical.

could you write that in english, tried to search for what ∀ meant, but nothing appeared in google.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying if land has element x, then earth has element x.
land has flatness, therefore Earth has flatness. and this is correct. but the problem is, that this doesn't extend to
If land is x, then Earth is x, which is a false premise.

No, you have misunderstood my argument entirely, because you don't have even a basic grasp of the fundaments of logic. Why do you pretend to be able to distinguish what is and is not logical, if you don't even remotely understand logic? Why should anyone trust you on matters you claim to know nothing about?

Zeteticists are well-versed in logic and zetetic meditations, these two procedures combined reveal to us the truths of science which we espouse. I am now not surprised that you have such trouble with our system of scientific discovery, because you are not logically competent. It is a great thing to know what is logical and what is illogical, and I advise you to learn.

I know what logic is.

Great! So you're in agreement that there is nothing illogical about Flat Earth Theory.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Lorddave on May 21, 2010, 07:09:59 PM
@James

If your logic is so flawless, then why have you said that moonlight is harmful, plants don't need light, optical illusions aren't real, that there is a millions of km tall dome beyond the icewall, and that the conspiracy has genetically engineered trees and modified paper so that ink moves around on them. Or the argument that because ancient people implied that the earth was flat in the word earth means that it must be so. Or the argument that Australia doesn't exist. Or the argument that the combination of two raindrops is one raindrop proves that 1+1=1 rendering math invalid.

Quite a bit of the stuff here is illogical and outright absurd, but no more or less than what you would find on any other internet forum.

Well, none of those claims are illogical. Do you know what illogical means? Tell me what it is for something to be illogical.

could you write that in english, tried to search for what ∀ meant, but nothing appeared in google.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying if land has element x, then earth has element x.
land has flatness, therefore Earth has flatness. and this is correct. but the problem is, that this doesn't extend to
If land is x, then Earth is x, which is a false premise.

No, you have misunderstood my argument entirely, because you don't have even a basic grasp of the fundaments of logic. Why do you pretend to be able to distinguish what is and is not logical, if you don't even remotely understand logic? Why should anyone trust you on matters you claim to know nothing about?

Zeteticists are well-versed in logic and zetetic meditations, these two procedures combined reveal to us the truths of science which we espouse. I am now not surprised that you have such trouble with our system of scientific discovery, because you are not logically competent. It is a great thing to know what is logical and what is illogical, and I advise you to learn.

I know what logic is.

Great! So you're in agreement that there is nothing illogical about Flat Earth Theory.

Which one?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Deceiver on May 22, 2010, 06:17:31 AM
@James

If your logic is so flawless, then why have you said that moonlight is harmful, plants don't need light, optical illusions aren't real, that there is a millions of km tall dome beyond the icewall, and that the conspiracy has genetically engineered trees and modified paper so that ink moves around on them. Or the argument that because ancient people implied that the earth was flat in the word earth means that it must be so. Or the argument that Australia doesn't exist. Or the argument that the combination of two raindrops is one raindrop proves that 1+1=1 rendering math invalid.

Quite a bit of the stuff here is illogical and outright absurd, but no more or less than what you would find on any other internet forum.

Well, none of those claims are illogical. Do you know what illogical means? Tell me what it is for something to be illogical.

could you write that in english, tried to search for what ? meant, but nothing appeared in google.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying if land has element x, then earth has element x.
land has flatness, therefore Earth has flatness. and this is correct. but the problem is, that this doesn't extend to
If land is x, then Earth is x, which is a false premise.

No, you have misunderstood my argument entirely, because you don't have even a basic grasp of the fundaments of logic. Why do you pretend to be able to distinguish what is and is not logical, if you don't even remotely understand logic? Why should anyone trust you on matters you claim to know nothing about?

Zeteticists are well-versed in logic and zetetic meditations, these two procedures combined reveal to us the truths of science which we espouse. I am now not surprised that you have such trouble with our system of scientific discovery, because you are not logically competent. It is a great thing to know what is logical and what is illogical, and I advise you to learn.

I know what logic is.

Great! So you're in agreement that there is nothing illogical about Flat Earth Theory.

Thankfully, science relies more heavily on comprehensive datasets and observation before conclusions enter play.

If I start out with the premise that the earth looks flat around my immediate perspective, then sure, using 'logic' I can figure out all sorts of things about the flat earth and I might even reach similar conclusions as you. Unfortunately, as FET has clearly shown, logic alone is about as useful or applicable as philosophy, and as a result, no one can agree on basic fundamentals except for the fact that the earth is flat (because that's where everyone started their argument) . It can't produce mathematical models, since no experiment or data collection is involved, and it certainly fails to correct for human bias, which is the entire purpose of the scientific method.

So, if two people can't even reach similar conclusions based on logic or Zetetiscm(sp?), or even get close to providing any sort of workable equations or predictions, the 'theory' is utterly useless.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Sliver on May 22, 2010, 06:55:09 AM
No, on the contrary, I do not think you will find a single illogical argument by a Flat Earther, as we are highly versed in logic. Are you instead trying to accuse our premises of being false? I assure you our arguments themselves are valid.
This seriously made me laugh!  Amazed, meet the greatest troll on the site.  James, here, says he doesn't think you will find a single illogical argument by a Flat Earther, yet he himself has argued that not only is the moon alive, but is eating itself.  He's also argued that the "craters" we see on the moon are actually migrating lifeforms.  He has no proof of this, nor will he do any real research on the subject, but somehow, in the above quote, calims this to be a logical argument.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 22, 2010, 07:02:41 AM
No, on the contrary, I do not think you will find a single illogical argument by a Flat Earther, as we are highly versed in logic. Are you instead trying to accuse our premises of being false? I assure you our arguments themselves are valid.
This seriously made me laugh!  Amazed, meet the greatest troll on the site.  James, here, says he doesn't think you will find a single illogical argument by a Flat Earther, yet he himself has argued that not only is the moon alive, but is eating itself.  He's also argued that the "craters" we see on the moon are actually migrating lifeforms.  He has no proof of this, nor will he do any real research on the subject, but somehow, in the above quote, calims this to be a logical argument.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Now Sliver, I don't wish to be facetious, but I'm interested to know what your definition of a logical argument is - tell me please. Perhaps we are working on different understandings of what is required for an argument to have logical validity? Please post yours and then I will post mine.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Sliver on May 22, 2010, 07:07:22 AM
No, on the contrary, I do not think you will find a single illogical argument by a Flat Earther, as we are highly versed in logic. Are you instead trying to accuse our premises of being false? I assure you our arguments themselves are valid.
This seriously made me laugh!  Amazed, meet the greatest troll on the site.  James, here, says he doesn't think you will find a single illogical argument by a Flat Earther, yet he himself has argued that not only is the moon alive, but is eating itself.  He's also argued that the "craters" we see on the moon are actually migrating lifeforms.  He has no proof of this, nor will he do any real research on the subject, but somehow, in the above quote, calims this to be a logical argument.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Now Sliver, I don't wish to be facetious, but I'm interested to know what your definition of a logical argument is - tell me please. Perhaps we are working on different understandings of what is required for an argument to have logical validity? Please post yours and then I will post mine.

Well, first off, I like how you did not deny the troll label I put on you.  And second...
log·ic
? ?/?l?d??k/ Show Spelled[loj-ik] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2.
a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3.
the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4.
reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5.
convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.
6.
Computers . logic circuit.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 22, 2010, 09:46:13 AM
Brilliant, ok. So do you agree that, given the laws of inference, for a sentence to be logically valid is for it to be formulated such that there is no possible circumstance where the premises are true and the conclusion false?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Deceiver on May 22, 2010, 10:55:59 AM
Brilliant, ok. So do you agree that, given the laws of inference, for a sentence to be logically valid is for it to be formulated such that there is no possible circumstance where the premises are true and the conclusion false?

When the facts can't be argued, turn to semantics! Another thread derailed.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 22, 2010, 11:04:36 AM
Brilliant, ok. So do you agree that, given the laws of inference, for a sentence to be logically valid is for it to be formulated such that there is no possible circumstance where the premises are true and the conclusion false?

When the facts can't be argued, turn to semantics! Another thread derailed.

I was not the person who brought up logic, it was a globularist. Be consistent.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: markjo on May 22, 2010, 01:32:01 PM
Brilliant, ok. So do you agree that, given the laws of inference, for a sentence to be logically valid is for it to be formulated such that there is no possible circumstance where the premises are true and the conclusion false?

Is this an admission that your conclusions about the Earth being flat might be false?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 22, 2010, 01:38:16 PM
Brilliant, ok. So do you agree that, given the laws of inference, for a sentence to be logically valid is for it to be formulated such that there is no possible circumstance where the premises are true and the conclusion false?

Is this an admission that your conclusions about the Earth being flat might be false?

No, it is a denial of their being illogical.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Catchpa on May 22, 2010, 01:59:57 PM
James, please answer the following. Which one of the flat earth models are logical?

@James

If your logic is so flawless, then why have you said that moonlight is harmful, plants don't need light, optical illusions aren't real, that there is a millions of km tall dome beyond the icewall, and that the conspiracy has genetically engineered trees and modified paper so that ink moves around on them. Or the argument that because ancient people implied that the earth was flat in the word earth means that it must be so. Or the argument that Australia doesn't exist. Or the argument that the combination of two raindrops is one raindrop proves that 1+1=1 rendering math invalid.

Quite a bit of the stuff here is illogical and outright absurd, but no more or less than what you would find on any other internet forum.

Well, none of those claims are illogical. Do you know what illogical means? Tell me what it is for something to be illogical.

could you write that in english, tried to search for what ? meant, but nothing appeared in google.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying if land has element x, then earth has element x.
land has flatness, therefore Earth has flatness. and this is correct. but the problem is, that this doesn't extend to
If land is x, then Earth is x, which is a false premise.

No, you have misunderstood my argument entirely, because you don't have even a basic grasp of the fundaments of logic. Why do you pretend to be able to distinguish what is and is not logical, if you don't even remotely understand logic? Why should anyone trust you on matters you claim to know nothing about?

Zeteticists are well-versed in logic and zetetic meditations, these two procedures combined reveal to us the truths of science which we espouse. I am now not surprised that you have such trouble with our system of scientific discovery, because you are not logically competent. It is a great thing to know what is logical and what is illogical, and I advise you to learn.

I know what logic is.

Great! So you're in agreement that there is nothing illogical about Flat Earth Theory.

Which one?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 22, 2010, 02:03:24 PM
All Flat Earth theories are logically valid.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Space Tourist on May 22, 2010, 02:10:26 PM
All Flat Earth theories are logically valid.

A global conspiracy is any thing but logical. Lets not even get started on said motives of it >.>
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Sliver on May 22, 2010, 02:43:41 PM
Brilliant, ok. So do you agree that, given the laws of inference, for a sentence to be logically valid is for it to be formulated such that there is no possible circumstance where the premises are true and the conclusion false?
Let's just work with this part here...

log·ic
–noun
4.
reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.

Now let's apply that to some of your seriously outlandish, unproven claims.  Like the one about the shadows in craters on the moon, actually being migrating lifeforms eating the moon.  This theory of yours screams of unreasonable and anything but sound judgment.

Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 22, 2010, 03:05:42 PM
I am talking about the laws of formal logic.

Sliver, are any of the claims of FET logically invalid? Which ones are they?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Sliver on May 22, 2010, 03:36:57 PM
I am talking about the laws of formal logic.

Sliver, are any of the claims of FET logically invalid? Which ones are they?
Well, I'd say the conspiracy, the ice wall, the spotlight sun, the moon eating itself would be a few to start with.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 22, 2010, 03:59:12 PM
I am talking about the laws of formal logic.

Sliver, are any of the claims of FET logically invalid? Which ones are they?
Well, I'd say the conspiracy, the ice wall, the spotlight sun, the moon eating itself would be a few to start with.

Well, clearly you aren't even versed in the basics of logic if you think that then! What is logically invalid about the arguments used to support these claims?

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/622154/validity

What makes the arguments of FET logically invalid?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Ellipsis on May 22, 2010, 04:05:17 PM
Being logical doesn't mean being right, because you can presume any logical premise you want even if it has nothing to do with reality.

Premise 1: Gold is valuable.
Premise 2: I become rich by attaining many things of value.
Premise 3: I crap gold.
Conclusion: I can easily become rich by crapping enough gold.

Being logically sound can still have no bearing in reality, since I don't actually crap gold.  This is the FE mistake, in that "the Earth is flat" is always a presumed premise and never a conclusion, so it being wrong means the conclusion doesn't hold in reality.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 22, 2010, 04:07:46 PM
Bene, Ellipsis. It fills me with so much rage when silly little globularists think they understand the meaning of logical validity and cry "Flat Earth is illogical"! What they actually want to evince is that they think it is false, but they're so ill-informed that they don't even understand the difference. I find it incredible that people with such a ridiculous dearth of understanding can be so utterly convinced that they know everything.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Ellipsis on May 22, 2010, 04:10:51 PM
If one of your premises is wrong, your conclusion can also be wrong, regardless of how logical it is.

Would you disagree?

Presuming the premise "Earth is flat" doesn't make one illogical, but it does make one wrong.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 22, 2010, 04:15:32 PM
If one of your premises is wrong, your conclusion can also be wrong, regardless of how logical it is.

Would you disagree?

Presuming the premise "Earth is flat" doesn't make one illogical, but it does make one wrong.

Yes absolutely. That's precisely what I'm saying. Sliver, because he is severely impeded in knowledge, doesn't understand the difference between invalidity and falsity, which means he can't coherently deliver his opinions. This was the problem I wished to address with all this talk of logic.

Edit: See below!
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Sliver on May 22, 2010, 04:16:56 PM
Well, clearly you aren't even versed in the basics of logic if you think that then! What is logically invalid about the arguments used to support these claims?

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/622154/validity

What makes the arguments of FET logically invalid?
Let's take this part of your link...
Whenever the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, because of the form of the argument.
Your premises that the craters are migrating life forms, that there is a massive conspiracy, the ice wall, bendy light, spotlight sun, moonlight is harmful, are all untrue.  Therefore your conclusion is also untrue, and therefore your arguments are logically invalid.  Before you insit that I prove your little bull**** statements are untrue, you must first provide evidence to support them, which you have not done.

Also, it's very nice to see you STILL have not renounced the troll label i stuck on you.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 22, 2010, 04:18:37 PM
Well, clearly you aren't even versed in the basics of logic if you think that then! What is logically invalid about the arguments used to support these claims?

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/622154/validity

What makes the arguments of FET logically invalid?
Let's take this part of your link...
Whenever the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, because of the form of the argument.
Your premises that the craters are migrating life forms, that there is a massive conspiracy, the ice wall, bendy light, spotlight sun, moonlight is harmful, are all untrue.  Therefore your conclusion is also untrue, and therefore your arguments are logically invalid.  Before you insit that I prove your little bull**** statements are untrue, you must first provide evidence to support them, which you have not done.

Also, it's very nice to see you STILL have not renounced the troll label i stuck on you.

Ah, you see! You just simply don't get, do you? You're trying to tell me that my beliefs are false, not logically invalid!
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Sliver on May 22, 2010, 04:18:40 PM
If one of your premises is wrong, your conclusion can also be wrong, regardless of how logical it is.

Would you disagree?

Presuming the premise "Earth is flat" doesn't make one illogical, but it does make one wrong.

Yes absolutely. That's precisely what I'm saying. Sliver, because he is severely impeded in knowledge, doesn't understand the difference between invalidity and falsity, which means he can't coherently deliver his opinions. This was the problem I wished to address with all this talk of logic.
This coming from a guy scared of the moon?  And I'm the one impeded in knowledge?  This statement makes me think you're trying to antagonize me into doing something you can ban me for.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 22, 2010, 04:20:51 PM
Well you've just demonstrated that you don't grasp the concept of logical validity, which makes you a pretty poor arbiter of knowledge, doesn't it?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Sliver on May 22, 2010, 04:26:08 PM
Well you've just demonstrated that you don't grasp the concept of logical validity, which makes you a pretty poor arbiter of knowledge, doesn't it?
I grasped it just fine.  If your premises are true, your conclusion is true.  That's actually circular reasoning.  And since your premises are not true, your conclusion cannot be true either.  All that aside, though, you seem to have no problem with me saying your premises are untrue, which would mean you also believe they are untrue, which would simply make you a troll.  See how that logic worked?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 22, 2010, 04:41:22 PM
Well you've just demonstrated that you don't grasp the concept of logical validity, which makes you a pretty poor arbiter of knowledge, doesn't it?
I grasped it just fine.  If your premises are true, your conclusion is true.  That's actually circular reasoning.  And since your premises are not true, your conclusion cannot be true either.  All that aside, though, you seem to have no problem with me saying your premises are untrue, which would mean you also believe they are untrue, which would simply make you a troll.  See how that logic worked?

You are so silly! An argument is logically invalid iff there are possible circumstances in which the premises are true and the conclusion false. Since none of the arguments of Flat Earth Theory fulfill this critereon, none of them are logically invalid. You claimed they were, because you did not know what logically invalid actually means.

I do not think my premises are false. You may think my premises are false, but unless you think there are possible circumstances in which my premises are true AND my conclusion false, you do not think my arguments are logically invalid, Q. E. D.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Sliver on May 22, 2010, 04:43:19 PM
You are so silly!
Please refrain from personal attacks in the upper forums.  Thanks.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 22, 2010, 04:47:43 PM
Silliness isn't a bad thing, it is a state of unknowing. I am making a literal observation which is perspicuous to the topic at hand - your grasp of the fundaments of logic.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Sliver on May 22, 2010, 04:53:08 PM
Silliness isn't a bad thing, it is a state of unknowing. I am making a literal observation which is perspicuous to the topic at hand - your grasp of the fundaments of logic.
Fair enough, than you wouldn't have a problem with me calling you silly for thinking moonlight is harmful.  It's just a state of unknowing, right?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: markjo on May 22, 2010, 07:11:25 PM
Brilliant, ok. So do you agree that, given the laws of inference, for a sentence to be logically valid is for it to be formulated such that there is no possible circumstance where the premises are true and the conclusion false?

Is this an admission that your conclusions about the Earth being flat might be false?

No, it is a denial of their being illogical.

Does this mean that your conclusion that the Earth being flat could be logically valid but factually false?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Idee Unfixe on May 22, 2010, 08:22:52 PM
We really can safely concede the point that any given FET may be logical and move on...

Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 23, 2010, 04:00:04 AM
Brilliant, ok. So do you agree that, given the laws of inference, for a sentence to be logically valid is for it to be formulated such that there is no possible circumstance where the premises are true and the conclusion false?

Is this an admission that your conclusions about the Earth being flat might be false?

No, it is a denial of their being illogical.

Does this mean that your conclusion that the Earth being flat could be logically valid but factually false?

It certainly could be, but clearly I don't think it is. I consider my arguments to be logically sound as well as logically valid.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: markjo on May 23, 2010, 05:06:50 AM
Brilliant, ok. So do you agree that, given the laws of inference, for a sentence to be logically valid is for it to be formulated such that there is no possible circumstance where the premises are true and the conclusion false?

Is this an admission that your conclusions about the Earth being flat might be false?

No, it is a denial of their being illogical.

Does this mean that your conclusion that the Earth being flat could be logically valid but factually false?

It certainly could be, but clearly I don't think it is. I consider my arguments to be logically sound as well as logically valid.

It's not what you think that matters, it's what you can prove.  Logically sound and logically valid do not always mean factually correct.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 23, 2010, 05:48:55 AM
Actually, logically sound does mean that the conclusion is factually correct, because a logically sound argument is a logically valid argument with true premises.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Catchpa on May 23, 2010, 05:57:13 AM
What the hell does this matter?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Sliver on May 23, 2010, 11:17:48 AM
What the hell does this matter?
That's a very good question.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: markjo on May 23, 2010, 08:39:49 PM
Actually, logically sound does mean that the conclusion is factually correct, because a logically sound argument is a logically valid argument with true premises.

You're assuming that your premise and your data are correct in the first place.  Remember the concept of GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 24, 2010, 04:54:01 AM
Actually, logically sound does mean that the conclusion is factually correct, because a logically sound argument is a logically valid argument with true premises.

You're assuming that your premise and your data are correct in the first place.  Remember the concept of GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

That's right, but clearly I don't consider zetetic meditations to be garbage, and they are what furnish the premises of my arguments.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: markjo on May 24, 2010, 06:18:43 AM
Actually, logically sound does mean that the conclusion is factually correct, because a logically sound argument is a logically valid argument with true premises.

You're assuming that your premise and your data are correct in the first place.  Remember the concept of GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

That's right, but clearly I don't consider zetetic meditations to be garbage, and they are what furnish the premises of my arguments.

I'm not calling the Zetetic method garbage.  The concept of GIGO does not refer to the process, rather to the data.  You can have a flawless logical process, but that process is useless if the data that you feed into it isn't valid or appropriate.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 24, 2010, 06:48:15 AM
Actually, logically sound does mean that the conclusion is factually correct, because a logically sound argument is a logically valid argument with true premises.

You're assuming that your premise and your data are correct in the first place.  Remember the concept of GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

That's right, but clearly I don't consider zetetic meditations to be garbage, and they are what furnish the premises of my arguments.

I'm not calling the Zetetic method garbage.  The concept of GIGO does not refer to the process, rather to the data.  You can have a flawless logical process, but that process is useless if the data that you feed into it isn't valid or appropriate.

Yes, but the "G" is provided by Zetetic method and then processed using logical syllogism.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: trig on May 24, 2010, 07:01:02 AM
No, on the contrary, I do not think you will find a single illogical argument by a Flat Earther, as we are highly versed in logic. Are you instead trying to accuse our premises of being false? I assure you our arguments themselves are valid.
This seriously made me laugh!  Amazed, meet the greatest troll on the site.  James, here, says he doesn't think you will find a single illogical argument by a Flat Earther, yet he himself has argued that not only is the moon alive, but is eating itself.  He's also argued that the "craters" we see on the moon are actually migrating lifeforms.  He has no proof of this, nor will he do any real research on the subject, but somehow, in the above quote, calims this to be a logical argument.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
James is really playing with words, or doing cheap philosophy, if you prefer. In logic, whether the classical variety (ponendo ponens, tolendo tolens, etc.) or the mathematical one, the proposition is assumed true, There is no room for real life in logic, where absolute truth is impossible to spot.

It is easy to make strong-sounding claims, like:

In practice, where solid science is applicable the word games with logic are frequently right, but irrelevant.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: markjo on May 24, 2010, 08:17:39 AM
Actually, logically sound does mean that the conclusion is factually correct, because a logically sound argument is a logically valid argument with true premises.

You're assuming that your premise and your data are correct in the first place.  Remember the concept of GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

That's right, but clearly I don't consider zetetic meditations to be garbage, and they are what furnish the premises of my arguments.

I'm not calling the Zetetic method garbage.  The concept of GIGO does not refer to the process, rather to the data.  You can have a flawless logical process, but that process is useless if the data that you feed into it isn't valid or appropriate.

Yes, but the "G" is provided by Zetetic method and then processed using logical syllogism.

???  The Zetetic method provides garbage?  Remember that GIGO stands for Garbage In, Garbage Out and says nothing about the method used to process the data.  GIGO only refers to the quality of the raw data itself.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_In,_Garbage_Out
On two occasions I have been asked,—"Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
     
— Charles Babbage, Passages from the Life of a Philosopher[1]
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 24, 2010, 07:58:07 PM
Yes, I appreciate that you respect logical syllogism, yet do not respect zetetic meditation. Can you please elaborate on why you suppose that zetetic meditations produce garbage rather than infallible truths?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: markjo on May 24, 2010, 08:07:18 PM
???  Where did I say that Zetetic meditations produce garbage results?  Perhaps you should read the entire GIGO wiki entry.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 25, 2010, 06:24:40 AM
I am aware of the meaning of the acronym Garbage In, Garbage Out. I am telling you that the "garbage" which I am putting "in" to logical operations is the content of Zetetic Meditations. Now, why is it garbage?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: markjo on May 25, 2010, 09:26:28 AM
I was under the impression that Zetetic Meditation was the process by which the data was processed (the logical operations, if you will), not the data itself.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Deceiver on May 25, 2010, 09:18:24 PM
I am aware of the meaning of the acronym Garbage In, Garbage Out. I am telling you that the "garbage" which I am putting "in" to logical operations is the content of Zetetic Meditations. Now, why is it garbage?

Like Markjo, I'm a bit confused myself.

Are you saying that your 'garbage in' does not consist of facts already established beyond doubt with scientific evidence, but is instead consists of facts that have their basis in Zetetic meditation/methodology? In addition to the Zetetic 'in' you are saying that you use Zetetic meditation as the process which leads you to get the 'out' facts? These 'out' facts are then used to get additional 'out' facts through more Zetetic meditation/methodology?

In other words your process of increasing knowledge is similar to scientists, but with different methodology. We use the scientific method to establish fundamentals, whereas we also use the scientific method to expand upon those fundamentals and so on.

I'm sure that could be worded better somehow, anyway, could you clarify?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: flyingmonkey on May 26, 2010, 04:03:20 AM
This dog is golden, all dogs are golden until I see one that is not.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 26, 2010, 03:09:35 PM
I was under the impression that Zetetic Meditation was the process by which the data was processed (the logical operations, if you will), not the data itself.

Theoretic (globular) Method:
Invented Hypothesis (made up by scientist) -> Testing to Corroborate Hypothesis -> Conclusion (modified version of original hypothesis to fit evidence)

Zetetic Method:
Zetetic Meditations reveal either
The "immediate and demonstrable causes" of the phenomena in question (i.e., no a priori theorising) - no further investigation
OR
a set of "manifest and undeniable facts" of the matter, in which case:

Facts derived from ZM -> stringent logical analysis ("what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom").

More info available at: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm

Theoretic method is the process of attempting to bolster a preconceived hypothesis, with selective attention to evidence which supports the case (this is how globularism came about).

Zetetic method provides direct access to the actual truth, through the dual procedure: Zetetic Meditation followed by Logical Analysis.
 (This is how the true shape of the Earth was discovered).

The difference in method is important!
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: markjo on May 26, 2010, 04:23:02 PM
Zetetic Method:
Zetetic Meditations reveal either
The "immediate and demonstrable causes" of the phenomena in question (i.e., no a priori theorising) - no further investigation

I'm so very glad that the Zetetic process is not used in investigating crimes or accidents as"immediate causes" are often not the "root causes".

OR
a set of "manifest and undeniable facts" of the matter, in which case:

And by what process are these "manifest and undeniable facts" falsified?

As near as I can tell, Zetetic meditations conclude that something must be true because it seems to be true.  The scientific method realizes that things are not always as they seem.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Catchpa on May 26, 2010, 10:39:49 PM
I don't get it. What's wrong with a hypothesis? You can't just go about with your daily lives and then suddenly make a bunch of experiments for no reason whatsoever, without making at least a vague hypothesis. You can't skip that part.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Tech on May 26, 2010, 10:56:36 PM
Idk. The hypothesis is what you test in an experiment, but some people here seem to think that in that experiment, you bias the experiment to find that the hypothesis is true even if it may not be. But in any college science course they stress the simple idea that you must not do this. You get the data you get and try to makes sense of it.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on May 28, 2010, 09:51:33 AM
I don't get it. What's wrong with a hypothesis? You can't just go about with your daily lives and then suddenly make a bunch of experiments for no reason whatsoever, without making at least a vague hypothesis. You can't skip that part.

What do you think we have done?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Tech on May 28, 2010, 11:42:47 AM
I don't get it. What's wrong with a hypothesis? You can't just go about with your daily lives and then suddenly make a bunch of experiments for no reason whatsoever, without making at least a vague hypothesis. You can't skip that part.

What do you think we have done?


You...skip the hypothesis?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on May 28, 2010, 02:45:12 PM
Of course in attempt at being bias.  Truth cannot be found by first assuming it.  One must seek the truth and then accept it and study it to discern its nature.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Tech on May 28, 2010, 02:54:21 PM
Of course in attempt at being bias.  Truth cannot be found by first assuming it.  One must seek the truth and then accept it and study it to discern its nature.

The hypothesis is what you are testing. You assume something and then test to see if it's true or not, you try and test one thing at a time, otherwise you will never "discern the truth." A hypothesis is extremely vital for finding anything out about the universe, using experimentation.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on May 28, 2010, 04:48:06 PM
Of course in attempt at being bias.  Truth cannot be found by first assuming it.  One must seek the truth and then accept it and study it to discern its nature.

The hypothesis is what you are testing. You assume something and then test to see if it's true or not, you try and test one thing at a time, otherwise you will never "discern the truth." A hypothesis is extremely vital for finding anything out about the universe, using experimentation.
Its not vital at all.  How is gathering data objectively then constructing a model bunk?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Tech on May 28, 2010, 05:55:08 PM
Of course in attempt at being bias.  Truth cannot be found by first assuming it.  One must seek the truth and then accept it and study it to discern its nature.

The hypothesis is what you are testing. You assume something and then test to see if it's true or not, you try and test one thing at a time, otherwise you will never "discern the truth." A hypothesis is extremely vital for finding anything out about the universe, using experimentation.
Its not vital at all.  How is gathering data objectively then constructing a model bunk?

Not only do you basically need a hypothesis to gather data, to construct a model, but the model itself is also just a hypothesis which you then also need to further test.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: markjo on May 28, 2010, 09:36:47 PM
Of course in attempt at being bias.  Truth cannot be found by first assuming it.  One must seek the truth and then accept it and study it to discern its nature.

The hypothesis is what you are testing. You assume something and then test to see if it's true or not, you try and test one thing at a time, otherwise you will never "discern the truth." A hypothesis is extremely vital for finding anything out about the universe, using experimentation.
Its not vital at all.  How is gathering data objectively then constructing a model bunk?
How do you construct a model if you have no idea of what the model is supposed to look like?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 05, 2010, 01:16:13 PM
Of course in attempt at being bias.  Truth cannot be found by first assuming it.  One must seek the truth and then accept it and study it to discern its nature.

The hypothesis is what you are testing. You assume something and then test to see if it's true or not, you try and test one thing at a time, otherwise you will never "discern the truth." A hypothesis is extremely vital for finding anything out about the universe, using experimentation.
Its not vital at all.  How is gathering data objectively then constructing a model bunk?
How do you construct a model if you have no idea of what the model is supposed to look like?

How do you construct an accurate and fair model by knowing what it is supposed to look like before you start?
Of course in attempt at being bias.  Truth cannot be found by first assuming it.  One must seek the truth and then accept it and study it to discern its nature.

The hypothesis is what you are testing. You assume something and then test to see if it's true or not, you try and test one thing at a time, otherwise you will never "discern the truth." A hypothesis is extremely vital for finding anything out about the universe, using experimentation.
Its not vital at all.  How is gathering data objectively then constructing a model bunk?

Not only do you basically need a hypothesis to gather data, to construct a model, but the model itself is also just a hypothesis which you then also need to further test.
No, you don't need a hypothesis to gather data.  People gathered data about the heavens for thousands of years before the scientific revolution or before knowing why.  A model can be constructed from a dataset.  At the point when you test it you move into the second phase of true holy science and test.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: markjo on June 05, 2010, 02:09:43 PM
How do you construct an accurate and fair model by knowing what it is supposed to look like before you start?

???  Is this a serious question?  You build your model based on what you think that it's supposed look like and then test it to see how it compares to reality. 

Perhaps we need to step back for a moment to see if we can even agree as to what a model is and what it's used for.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling#Model
A model is a simplified abstract view of the complex reality. A scientific model represents empirical  objects, phenomena, and physical processes in a logical way. Attempts to formalize the principles of the empirical sciences, use an interpretation to model reality, in the same way logicians axiomatize the principles of logic. The aim of these attempts is to construct a formal system for which reality is the only interpretation. The world is an interpretation (or model) of these sciences, only insofar as these sciences are true.[1]

John, would you agree that this is a fair definition of a scientific model?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 05, 2010, 04:08:10 PM
How do you construct an accurate and fair model by knowing what it is supposed to look like before you start?

???  Is this a serious question?  You build your model based on what you think that it's supposed look like and then test it to see how it compares to reality. 

Perhaps we need to step back for a moment to see if we can even agree as to what a model is and what it's used for.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling#Model
A model is a simplified abstract view of the complex reality. A scientific model represents empirical  objects, phenomena, and physical processes in a logical way. Attempts to formalize the principles of the empirical sciences, use an interpretation to model reality, in the same way logicians axiomatize the principles of logic. The aim of these attempts is to construct a formal system for which reality is the only interpretation. The world is an interpretation (or model) of these sciences, only insofar as these sciences are true.[1]

John, would you agree that this is a fair definition of a scientific model?

Why not just look and see what it looks like (gather data) and then build your model based off that.  From there you can test.

Glancing over that, it seems a fair enough definition.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: markjo on June 05, 2010, 05:20:33 PM
Why not just look and see what it looks like (gather data) and then build your model based off that.  From there you can test.

Gathering data is most certainly a part of building and validating any scientific model.  I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.  After all, you need to make sure that your model reflects reality as well as possible.  However, a well designed model will allow you to test for things that you can't see.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Overman1977 on June 06, 2010, 12:10:57 AM
I'm new here (obviously) and have been reading alot about formal logic and how this 'logic' has led some to believe the earth is flat, and have been trying to search out the premises that lead to this conclusion with little success.  could someone perhaps direct me to a place on the web where I might actually see these premises?

Also, I truly fail to see the logic in this: 'The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter...'  I would also very much like to see the premises of this argument.

I would like the premises in clear and distinct language with no use of double-talk, criticism, or assumption; and it must be succinct.

TY

Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 17, 2010, 05:19:46 AM
I'm new here (obviously) and have been reading alot about formal logic and how this 'logic' has led some to believe the earth is flat, and have been trying to search out the premises that lead to this conclusion with little success.  could someone perhaps direct me to a place on the web where I might actually see these premises?

Also, I truly fail to see the logic in this: 'The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter...'  I would also very much like to see the premises of this argument.

I would like the premises in clear and distinct language with no use of double-talk, criticism, or assumption; and it must be succinct.

TY


The sun and moon are said to be that size by some due to experiments done by Eratosthenes of Cyrene and the use of trig.  You can read about in Earth not a Globe.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on June 17, 2010, 06:07:45 AM
It should be stressed that Erastothenes' celestial measurements have only been retained selectively based on our own independent confirmation of their efficacy. Erastothenes himself was a globularist who regularly consorted with all manner of alcoholics and indulged in every kind of vice and deception, we would be fools to take anything he said at face value without our own rigorous investigation.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 17, 2010, 07:02:27 AM
What's the point of the thread? What means logic? Logic is the study of reasoning. How can you prove something is true with logic. This is a complete nonsense. You need math to prove something, not logic. In logic, if your domain is wrong you arrive at wrong conclusions. And this is just the case.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on June 17, 2010, 07:08:01 AM
First Order Logic is fundamentally mathematical, it consists in the manipulation of binary operators and truth tables. I have been outlining the systematic use of formal propositional logic by those who correctly apply the zetetic method. Thus, the discovery of the Flat Earth by zetetic science is grounded in mathematical truth.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 17, 2010, 08:33:53 AM
What's the point of the thread? What means logic? Logic is the study of reasoning. How can you prove something is true with logic. This is a complete nonsense. You need math to prove something, not logic. In logic, if your domain is wrong you arrive at wrong conclusions. And this is just the case.
You can't use math or logic to prove anything in reality.  However, they are useful tools towards such a more reasonable end.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 17, 2010, 08:39:20 AM
What's the point of the thread? What means logic? Logic is the study of reasoning. How can you prove something is true with logic. This is a complete nonsense. You need math to prove something, not logic. In logic, if your domain is wrong you arrive at wrong conclusions. And this is just the case.
You can't use math or logic to prove anything in reality.  However, they are useful tools towards such a more reasonable end.

Complete nonsense. So, how can you know what is the true reality? What are the tools to understand the world? You claim, for example, that we are constantly accelerating upwards (dunno what upwards mean): i think we are not accelerating in any way, because i don't feel it. Who's right?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 17, 2010, 09:03:28 AM
What's the point of the thread? What means logic? Logic is the study of reasoning. How can you prove something is true with logic. This is a complete nonsense. You need math to prove something, not logic. In logic, if your domain is wrong you arrive at wrong conclusions. And this is just the case.
You can't use math or logic to prove anything in reality.  However, they are useful tools towards such a more reasonable end.

Complete nonsense. So, how can you know what is the true reality? What are the tools to understand the world? You claim, for example, that we are constantly accelerating upwards (dunno what upwards mean): i think we are not accelerating in any way, because i don't feel it. Who's right?
I've made no such claim. 

Mathematics and Logic are some of the tools used to understand the world, as I just said.

If you don't think you are accelerating why not just look at a gravimeter?

Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: markjo on June 17, 2010, 11:40:48 AM
Erastothenes himself was a globularist who regularly consorted with all manner of alcoholics and indulged in every kind of vice and deception, we would be fools to take anything he said at face value without our own rigorous investigation.

Please refrain from ad hominems in the debate forums.  As a mod, you should know better.  >:(
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 19, 2010, 03:01:16 AM
What's the point of the thread? What means logic? Logic is the study of reasoning. How can you prove something is true with logic. This is a complete nonsense. You need math to prove something, not logic. In logic, if your domain is wrong you arrive at wrong conclusions. And this is just the case.
You can't use math or logic to prove anything in reality.  However, they are useful tools towards such a more reasonable end.

Complete nonsense. So, how can you know what is the true reality? What are the tools to understand the world? You claim, for example, that we are constantly accelerating upwards (dunno what upwards mean): i think we are not accelerating in any way, because i don't feel it. Who's right?
I've made no such claim. 

Mathematics and Logic are some of the tools used to understand the world, as I just said.

If you don't think you are accelerating why not just look at a gravimeter?



Who cares about gravimeter. I am zetetic. I dont have a gravimeter. Gravimeter is a consequence of the hoax
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 19, 2010, 04:02:49 PM
What's the point of the thread? What means logic? Logic is the study of reasoning. How can you prove something is true with logic. This is a complete nonsense. You need math to prove something, not logic. In logic, if your domain is wrong you arrive at wrong conclusions. And this is just the case.
You can't use math or logic to prove anything in reality.  However, they are useful tools towards such a more reasonable end.

Complete nonsense. So, how can you know what is the true reality? What are the tools to understand the world? You claim, for example, that we are constantly accelerating upwards (dunno what upwards mean): i think we are not accelerating in any way, because i don't feel it. Who's right?
I've made no such claim. 

Mathematics and Logic are some of the tools used to understand the world, as I just said.

If you don't think you are accelerating why not just look at a gravimeter?



Who cares about gravimeter. I am zetetic. I dont have a gravimeter. Gravimeter is a consequence of the hoax
Being zetetic has nothing to do with owning a gravimeter.

Gravimeters are accelerometers.  They measure your acceleration due to gravitation specifically.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 19, 2010, 04:12:50 PM
Of course in attempt at being bias.  Truth cannot be found by first assuming it.  One must seek the truth and then accept it and study it to discern its nature.

I guess we all missed the day in school when they said the scientific method first involves observation of a phenomena. Here's my 2cents

Zeteticism-->Observation of phenomenon-->Evidence-->Theory/Fact-->counter evidence is evil/conspiracy
Scientific Method-->Observation--->Hypothesis--->experiment to test hypothesis---> data-->conclusion-->revision of hypothesis--->repeat last three steps with other people--->Theory--->do allot more of those steps--->Law/fact

Zetetics get bored after the first few steps, skip the rest, and then say all evidence against is fake i.e. the cake is a lie argument
(spoiler the cake actually isn't a lie, it was a double bluff)
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 19, 2010, 04:20:45 PM
Of course in attempt at being bias.  Truth cannot be found by first assuming it.  One must seek the truth and then accept it and study it to discern its nature.

I guess we all missed the day in school when they said the scientific method first involves observation of a phenomena. Here's my 2cents

Zeteticism-->Observation of phenomenon-->Evidence-->Theory/Fact-->counter evidence is evil/conspiracy
Scientific Method-->Observation--->Hypothesis--->experiment to test hypothesis---> data-->conclusion-->revision of hypothesis--->repeat last three steps with other people--->Theory--->do allot more of those steps--->Law/fact

Zetetics get bored after the first few steps, skip the rest, and then say all evidence against is fake i.e. the cake is a lie argument
(spoiler the cake actually isn't a lie, it was a double bluff)
We say no such thing. 

Also we did not miss the part where you observe something and make up a falsehood to test against.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Catchpa on June 19, 2010, 05:20:42 PM
You never actually test if anything is true. ::)
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 20, 2010, 12:57:29 AM
Of course in attempt at being bias.  Truth cannot be found by first assuming it.  One must seek the truth and then accept it and study it to discern its nature.

I guess we all missed the day in school when they said the scientific method first involves observation of a phenomena. Here's my 2cents

Zeteticism-->Observation of phenomenon-->Evidence-->Theory/Fact-->counter evidence is evil/conspiracy
Scientific Method-->Observation--->Hypothesis--->experiment to test hypothesis---> data-->conclusion-->revision of hypothesis--->repeat last three steps with other people--->Theory--->do allot more of those steps--->Law/fact

Zetetics get bored after the first few steps, skip the rest, and then say all evidence against is fake i.e. the cake is a lie argument
(spoiler the cake actually isn't a lie, it was a double bluff)
We say no such thing. 

Also we did not miss the part where you observe something and make up a falsehood to test against.
Actually you sometimes do. Example conspiracy, moonlight, sunlight, bedford levels. how come no one outside of FES has reproduced these results. there is nothing logically wrong with the falsehood thing as long as you test against it. In america we go by innocent until guilty. and why do you have a problem with the scientific method? without it you wouldn't be reading this post. I wouldn't be alive without it personally. can your method say the same?

Zetetic thinking is esentially the first part of the S.M. however it lets you use the power of subjectivity to argue. word like untrustworthy and probably untrue are not scientific.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 03:13:14 AM
What's the point of the thread? What means logic? Logic is the study of reasoning. How can you prove something is true with logic. This is a complete nonsense. You need math to prove something, not logic. In logic, if your domain is wrong you arrive at wrong conclusions. And this is just the case.
You can't use math or logic to prove anything in reality.  However, they are useful tools towards such a more reasonable end.

Complete nonsense. So, how can you know what is the true reality? What are the tools to understand the world? You claim, for example, that we are constantly accelerating upwards (dunno what upwards mean): i think we are not accelerating in any way, because i don't feel it. Who's right?
I've made no such claim. 

Mathematics and Logic are some of the tools used to understand the world, as I just said.

If you don't think you are accelerating why not just look at a gravimeter?



Who cares about gravimeter. I am zetetic. I dont have a gravimeter. Gravimeter is a consequence of the hoax
Being zetetic has nothing to do with owning a gravimeter.

Gravimeters are accelerometers.  They measure your acceleration due to gravitation specifically.


I think that every instruments made by someone else, and by RE believers, are parts of the hoax. We cannot use gravimeter, it can be lie to us. We have to make our own instruments to be sure that the hoax, now, wants us to know that the earth is flat, instead of be concave.

To be serious, you really cannot take part of theories, only the parts that match your needs. The modern science, is based on a round earth. If you change the domain, claiming the earth is flat, you CANNOT use theories based on a round earth. You have to start your own physic. I wanna show the first parts of your faq to clarify that:

Quote
Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"

Circumference: 125,891 km (78,225 miles)
Diameter: 40,073 km (24,900 miles)

In both the Davis and the Bishop model, the Earth is an infinite plane.

So, the earth is finite or infinite? This first claim, really has an impact on your theory: if you assume the earth is infinite, you have to start your own physic. Good luck

Quote
Q: "Why are other planets round, but not the Earth?"

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

Tell me why, damn. Why the earth is special?

Quote
Q: "What is underneath the Earth?"

A: This is unknown. Most FE proponents believe that it is generally composed of rocks. Please note that in Hinduism, the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.

Are you serious? Things that you dont know how to answer are "uknown"? Really cute scientific method.

Quote
Q: "Aren't the accelerating Earth models flawed? Wouldn't planes crash into the Earth as it rises up to them?"

A: No. By the same argument, we could ask why planes do not crash into the Earth as they accelerate down towards it. The reason a plane does not crash is that its wings produce lift: when the rate of acceleration upwards equals that of gravity's pull downwards, lift causes the plane to remain at a constant altitude.

So, the air lift is more powerful than the speed of light, because if we cannot reach it, oh well, we are so close to it nowadays.


Quote
Q: "If the Earth's acceleration is constant, wouldn't it be traveling faster than light eventually?"

A: The equations of Special Relativity prevent an object with mass from reaching or passing the speed of light. Due to this restriction, these equations prove that the Earth can accelerate at a constant rate forever in our reference frame and never reach the speed of light. Click here for an in depth explanation.

You cannot use special relativity model only when you are pleased. Special relativity is based on a round earth. You fail.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 20, 2010, 03:27:40 AM
I think that every instruments made by someone else, and by RE believers, are parts of the hoax. We cannot use gravimeter, it can be lie to us. We have to make our own instruments to be sure that the hoax, now, wants us to know that the earth is flat, instead of be concave.
I don't even believe in a conspiracy, first off.

Secondly, fine.  Do this:  http://library.thinkquest.org/2745/data/meter.htm

You were wrong.  We are accelerating either model.

Quote
To be serious, you really cannot take part of theories, only the parts that match your needs. The modern science, is based on a round earth. If you change the domain, claiming the earth is flat, you CANNOT use theories based on a round earth. You have to start your own physic. I wanna show the first parts of your faq to clarify that:
Do you have reason or rhyme to back this claim up?  Why would you have to discount all of science?

Quote
So, the earth is finite or infinite? This first claim, really has an impact on your theory: if you assume the earth is infinite, you have to start your own physic. Good luck
Infinite.

Why would I have to start my own "physic"?  It fits fine within physics.

Quote
Tell me why, damn. Why the earth is special?
Its the only infinite body in the universe.  For one.

Quote
Are you serious? Things that you dont know how to answer are "uknown"? Really cute scientific method.
Thats how it works in either method.

Quote
A: No. By the same argument, we could ask why planes do not crash into the Earth as they accelerate down towards it. The reason a plane does not crash is that its wings produce lift: when the rate of acceleration upwards equals that of gravity's pull downwards, lift causes the plane to remain at a constant altitude.

So, the air lift is more powerful than the speed of light, because if we cannot reach it, oh well, we are so close to it nowadays.
[/quote]
No, air lift is not more powerful than the speed of light.  Speed does not matter, what does is acceleration.  Review the equiv. principle.

Quote
Quote
Q: "If the Earth's acceleration is constant, wouldn't it be traveling faster than light eventually?"
A: The equations of Special Relativity prevent an object with mass from reaching or passing the speed of light. Due to this restriction, these equations prove that the Earth can accelerate at a constant rate forever in our reference frame and never reach the speed of light. Click here for an in depth explanation.

You cannot use special relativity model only when you are pleased. Special relativity is based on a round earth. You fail.

Again, you give no reason to why we should discount the accurate parts of relativity.  Glob Science does it all the time.  For example, Relativity discounts much of Newtons work, but you don't throw it all out.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 04:14:21 AM
I think that every instruments made by someone else, and by RE believers, are parts of the hoax. We cannot use gravimeter, it can be lie to us. We have to make our own instruments to be sure that the hoax, now, wants us to know that the earth is flat, instead of be concave.
I don't even believe in a conspiracy, first off.

I need only this to disprove all of your thoughts. No conspiracy? Ok, so NASA exists (and not only NASA, but so many others associations) that proves the earth is damned round.

And you cannot claim: Earth is infinite without giving evidences, than use this to say that other planets are different from earth. First, you have to prove earth is infinite. If you dont prove it, you fail again. It's so difficult grasp simple logic?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 20, 2010, 04:16:41 AM
I think that every instruments made by someone else, and by RE believers, are parts of the hoax. We cannot use gravimeter, it can be lie to us. We have to make our own instruments to be sure that the hoax, now, wants us to know that the earth is flat, instead of be concave.
I don't even believe in a conspiracy, first off.

I need only this to disprove all of your thoughts. No conspiracy? Ok, so NASA exists (and not only NASA, but so many others associations) that proves the earth is damned round.

And you cannot claim: Earth is infinite without giving evidences, than use this to say that other planets are different from earth. First, you have to prove earth is infinite. If you dont prove it, you fail again. It's so difficult grasp simple logic?

Use the above device, but perhaps a more accurate version, to measure the gravitational pull at high altitudes.  This will yield evidence for you.  It is impossible to prove anything within reality.  You can only supply evidence.  Proving is within the subset of mathematics.

The fact NASA exists says nothing of the shape of the earth.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: General Disarray on June 20, 2010, 05:49:38 AM
You're not asking the right question, ask "What is special about the earth that causes it to not exert any gravitational force?"
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 20, 2010, 06:27:20 AM
You're not asking the right question, ask "What is special about the earth that causes it to not exert any gravitational force?"
Well, given that the point is true, which I don't hold it is, any number of things could be special about it.  Perhaps its not mass that causes gravitational pull but some other property.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 06:31:40 AM
I think that every instruments made by someone else, and by RE believers, are parts of the hoax. We cannot use gravimeter, it can be lie to us. We have to make our own instruments to be sure that the hoax, now, wants us to know that the earth is flat, instead of be concave.
I don't even believe in a conspiracy, first off.

I need only this to disprove all of your thoughts. No conspiracy? Ok, so NASA exists (and not only NASA, but so many others associations) that proves the earth is damned round.

And you cannot claim: Earth is infinite without giving evidences, than use this to say that other planets are different from earth. First, you have to prove earth is infinite. If you dont prove it, you fail again. It's so difficult grasp simple logic?

Use the above device, but perhaps a more accurate version, to measure the gravitational pull at high altitudes.  This will yield evidence for you.  It is impossible to prove anything within reality.  You can only supply evidence.  Proving is within the subset of mathematics.

The fact NASA exists says nothing of the shape of the earth.

No man, stop it. First of all, you have to prove earth is infinite. And you know better than me than you cannot prove this, so your theory is destroyed from the beginning. If you dont believe there is a hoax, why you cannot take the nasa pictures and see by yourself that the earth is round?

I have proof that earth is round. It is called lunar eclipse. How can you justify lunar eclipse with your model? The only way to have eclipse, is that the earth puts itself between the sun and the moon. Now, if the earth is an infinite plane, explain this:

(http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/files/2008/02/eclipse.jpg)

Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 06:35:10 AM
You're not asking the right question, ask "What is special about the earth that causes it to not exert any gravitational force?"
Well, given that the point is true, which I don't hold it is, any number of things could be special about it.  Perhaps its not mass that causes gravitational pull but some other property.

And again. This is annoying. It IS masses that cause gravitational pull. You know, relativity. Einstein, do you know? Or are you taking again only the part of the theory that you like?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 20, 2010, 06:42:41 AM
You're not asking the right question, ask "What is special about the earth that causes it to not exert any gravitational force?"
Well, given that the point is true, which I don't hold it is, any number of things could be special about it.  Perhaps its not mass that causes gravitational pull but some other property.

And again. This is annoying. It IS masses that cause gravitational pull. You know, relativity. Einstein, do you know? Or are you taking again only the part of the theory that you like?
He was referring to a different flat earth theory.  In mine mass creates gravitational pull.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 20, 2010, 06:44:02 AM
I think that every instruments made by someone else, and by RE believers, are parts of the hoax. We cannot use gravimeter, it can be lie to us. We have to make our own instruments to be sure that the hoax, now, wants us to know that the earth is flat, instead of be concave.
I don't even believe in a conspiracy, first off.

I need only this to disprove all of your thoughts. No conspiracy? Ok, so NASA exists (and not only NASA, but so many others associations) that proves the earth is damned round.

And you cannot claim: Earth is infinite without giving evidences, than use this to say that other planets are different from earth. First, you have to prove earth is infinite. If you dont prove it, you fail again. It's so difficult grasp simple logic?

Use the above device, but perhaps a more accurate version, to measure the gravitational pull at high altitudes.  This will yield evidence for you.  It is impossible to prove anything within reality.  You can only supply evidence.  Proving is within the subset of mathematics.

The fact NASA exists says nothing of the shape of the earth.

No man, stop it. First of all, you have to prove earth is infinite. And you know better than me than you cannot prove this, so your theory is destroyed from the beginning. If you dont believe there is a hoax, why you cannot take the nasa pictures and see by yourself that the earth is round?

I have proof that earth is round. It is called lunar eclipse. How can you justify lunar eclipse with your model? The only way to have eclipse, is that the earth puts itself between the sun and the moon. Now, if the earth is an infinite plane, explain this:

(http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/files/2008/02/eclipse.jpg)


I can't prove the earth is infinite, becaues its impossible to "prove" anything in reality.  I can supply evidence.  I have given you the means to see such evidence first hand.  There is no difference in gravitational pull at higher altitudes if one takes into local geography and the heavens.  This is evidence towards the reality of the infinite plane.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: General Disarray on June 20, 2010, 06:45:59 AM
That is evidence that it might be possible to fit that aspect into the greater work of FET if it were true, but it is not evidence that FET is true and RET is not.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 06:46:52 AM
Stupid troll, does not answering the stupid questions. Stay in peace with your huge ignorance.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 20, 2010, 06:48:40 AM
That is evidence that it might be possible to fit that aspect into the greater work of FET if it were true, but it is not evidence that FET is true and RET is not.
Given a round earth one would expect gravitational pull to diminish as one reaches higher altitudes.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 20, 2010, 06:49:30 AM
Stupid troll, does not answering the stupid questions. Stay in peace with your huge ignorance.
This is a warning not to make personal attacks and to post content-filled posts.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: General Disarray on June 20, 2010, 06:51:51 AM
That is evidence that it might be possible to fit that aspect into the greater work of FET if it were true, but it is not evidence that FET is true and RET is not.
Given a round earth one would expect gravitational pull to diminish as one reaches higher altitudes.

Where is the evidence that acceleration is constant regardless of altitude?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 20, 2010, 06:53:10 AM
That is evidence that it might be possible to fit that aspect into the greater work of FET if it were true, but it is not evidence that FET is true and RET is not.
Given a round earth one would expect gravitational pull to diminish as one reaches higher altitudes.

Where is the evidence that acceleration is constant regardless of altitude?
I have just supplied a very easy test that anyone can perform, given proper knowledge of the area.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 06:56:11 AM
Stupid troll, does not answering the stupid questions. Stay in peace with your huge ignorance.
This is a warning not to make personal attacks and to post content-filled posts.


This is a warning, answer all the questions, not the only one that you like. Stop trolling. Give answers.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 20, 2010, 07:09:55 AM
The moons light is that of its biomass.  A weather system exists on the moon that periodically travels across its surface and causes the effect of a lunar eclipse.

I'm sorry I forgot to answer that question.  I'm not a troll and I'm also not put on this earth to answer all your questions at your whim.  You aren't entitled to answers, and frankly given your demeanor and lack of any attempt at being polite I don't see why I should continue to go out of my way to help you understand theories that you can read about using the search function.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 07:50:16 AM
The moons light is that of its biomass.  A weather system exists on the moon that periodically travels across its surface and causes the effect of a lunar eclipse.

I'm sorry I forgot to answer that question.  I'm not a troll and I'm also not put on this earth to answer all your questions at your whim.  You aren't entitled to answers, and frankly given your demeanor and lack of any attempt at being polite I don't see why I should continue to go out of my way to help you understand theories that you can read about using the search function.

Surely you have proof of "biomass" and "moon weather system", beacause, you know, there is no atmosphere on the moon.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 20, 2010, 07:55:00 AM
The moons light is that of its biomass.  A weather system exists on the moon that periodically travels across its surface and causes the effect of a lunar eclipse.

I'm sorry I forgot to answer that question.  I'm not a troll and I'm also not put on this earth to answer all your questions at your whim.  You aren't entitled to answers, and frankly given your demeanor and lack of any attempt at being polite I don't see why I should continue to go out of my way to help you understand theories that you can read about using the search function.

Surely you have proof of "biomass" and "moon weather system", beacause, you know, there is no atmosphere on the moon.
Actually, there is an atmosphere on the moon.  Its caused by the regular sputtering of gases from the crust and mantle due to decay.  One can use spectroscopy to see this.  That is aside from the direct visual evidence.  What evidence do you have that there is no atmosphere on the moon?

The biomass is also believed to be regularly expelled and is known in its dry form manna and in its wet form as blood rain.  These are both often red which is why at times one can see the biomass of the moon turn red as it expels its dead matter.  These samples contain elements found on the moon including Na and K both of which we can use spectroscopy to verify their origin.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 09:02:19 AM
The moons light is that of its biomass.  A weather system exists on the moon that periodically travels across its surface and causes the effect of a lunar eclipse.

I'm sorry I forgot to answer that question.  I'm not a troll and I'm also not put on this earth to answer all your questions at your whim.  You aren't entitled to answers, and frankly given your demeanor and lack of any attempt at being polite I don't see why I should continue to go out of my way to help you understand theories that you can read about using the search function.

Surely you have proof of "biomass" and "moon weather system", beacause, you know, there is no atmosphere on the moon.
Actually, there is an atmosphere on the moon.  Its caused by the regular sputtering of gases from the crust and mantle due to decay.  One can use spectroscopy to see this.  That is aside from the direct visual evidence.  What evidence do you have that there is no atmosphere on the moon?

The biomass is also believed to be regularly expelled and is known in its dry form manna and in its wet form as blood rain.  These are both often red which is why at times one can see the biomass of the moon turn red as it expels its dead matter.  These samples contain elements found on the moon including Na and K both of which we can use spectroscopy to verify their origin.

LOLWTF are you saying??

This is my evidence:


Give me yours
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Catchpa on June 20, 2010, 09:04:02 AM
That is evidence that it might be possible to fit that aspect into the greater work of FET if it were true, but it is not evidence that FET is true and RET is not.
Given a round earth one would expect gravitational pull to diminish as one reaches higher altitudes.

Where is the evidence that acceleration is constant regardless of altitude?
I have just supplied a very easy test that anyone can perform, given proper knowledge of the area.

Can I see your results from this test?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 20, 2010, 09:14:01 AM
The moons light is that of its biomass.  A weather system exists on the moon that periodically travels across its surface and causes the effect of a lunar eclipse.

I'm sorry I forgot to answer that question.  I'm not a troll and I'm also not put on this earth to answer all your questions at your whim.  You aren't entitled to answers, and frankly given your demeanor and lack of any attempt at being polite I don't see why I should continue to go out of my way to help you understand theories that you can read about using the search function.

Surely you have proof of "biomass" and "moon weather system", beacause, you know, there is no atmosphere on the moon.
Actually, there is an atmosphere on the moon.  Its caused by the regular sputtering of gases from the crust and mantle due to decay.  One can use spectroscopy to see this.  That is aside from the direct visual evidence.  What evidence do you have that there is no atmosphere on the moon?

The biomass is also believed to be regularly expelled and is known in its dry form manna and in its wet form as blood rain.  These are both often red which is why at times one can see the biomass of the moon turn red as it expels its dead matter.  These samples contain elements found on the moon including Na and K both of which we can use spectroscopy to verify their origin.

LOLWTF are you saying??

This is my evidence:
http://W1NGXL3wc0M

Give me yours

Do you disagree that there is an atmosphere on the moon and where is your evidence?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 10:47:33 AM
The moons light is that of its biomass.  A weather system exists on the moon that periodically travels across its surface and causes the effect of a lunar eclipse.

I'm sorry I forgot to answer that question.  I'm not a troll and I'm also not put on this earth to answer all your questions at your whim.  You aren't entitled to answers, and frankly given your demeanor and lack of any attempt at being polite I don't see why I should continue to go out of my way to help you understand theories that you can read about using the search function.

Surely you have proof of "biomass" and "moon weather system", beacause, you know, there is no atmosphere on the moon.
Actually, there is an atmosphere on the moon.  Its caused by the regular sputtering of gases from the crust and mantle due to decay.  One can use spectroscopy to see this.  That is aside from the direct visual evidence.  What evidence do you have that there is no atmosphere on the moon?

The biomass is also believed to be regularly expelled and is known in its dry form manna and in its wet form as blood rain.  These are both often red which is why at times one can see the biomass of the moon turn red as it expels its dead matter.  These samples contain elements found on the moon including Na and K both of which we can use spectroscopy to verify their origin.

LOLWTF are you saying??

This is my evidence:
http://W1NGXL3wc0M

Give me yours

Do you disagree that there is an atmosphere on the moon and where is your evidence?

Do you think is simpler to think that the eclipse is due to the earth or due to "The biomass is also believed to be regularly expelled and is known in its dry form manna and in its wet form as blood rain.  These are both often red which is why at times one can see the biomass of the moon turn red as it expels its dead matter."

Blood rain? Also BELIAVED regularly expelled?? Dead Matter??? But WTF?? It is a giant rock!
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 20, 2010, 12:00:51 PM
The moons light is that of its biomass.  A weather system exists on the moon that periodically travels across its surface and causes the effect of a lunar eclipse.

I'm sorry I forgot to answer that question.  I'm not a troll and I'm also not put on this earth to answer all your questions at your whim.  You aren't entitled to answers, and frankly given your demeanor and lack of any attempt at being polite I don't see why I should continue to go out of my way to help you understand theories that you can read about using the search function.

Surely you have proof of "biomass" and "moon weather system", beacause, you know, there is no atmosphere on the moon.
Actually, there is an atmosphere on the moon.  Its caused by the regular sputtering of gases from the crust and mantle due to decay.  One can use spectroscopy to see this.  That is aside from the direct visual evidence.  What evidence do you have that there is no atmosphere on the moon?

The biomass is also believed to be regularly expelled and is known in its dry form manna and in its wet form as blood rain.  These are both often red which is why at times one can see the biomass of the moon turn red as it expels its dead matter.  These samples contain elements found on the moon including Na and K both of which we can use spectroscopy to verify their origin.

LOLWTF are you saying??

This is my evidence:
http://W1NGXL3wc0M

Give me yours

Do you disagree that there is an atmosphere on the moon and where is your evidence?

Do you think is simpler to think that the eclipse is due to the earth or due to "The biomass is also believed to be regularly expelled and is known in its dry form manna and in its wet form as blood rain.  These are both often red which is why at times one can see the biomass of the moon turn red as it expels its dead matter."

Blood rain? Also BELIAVED regularly expelled?? Dead Matter??? But WTF?? It is a giant rock!
Do you disagree that there is an atmosphere on the moon and where is your evidence?

Do you still hold we are not accelerating just because you "don't feel it"?

Why is it when I miss a question out I'm a troll, but you continue to dodge my questions?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 12:19:40 PM
The moons light is that of its biomass.  A weather system exists on the moon that periodically travels across its surface and causes the effect of a lunar eclipse.

I'm sorry I forgot to answer that question.  I'm not a troll and I'm also not put on this earth to answer all your questions at your whim.  You aren't entitled to answers, and frankly given your demeanor and lack of any attempt at being polite I don't see why I should continue to go out of my way to help you understand theories that you can read about using the search function.

Surely you have proof of "biomass" and "moon weather system", beacause, you know, there is no atmosphere on the moon.
Actually, there is an atmosphere on the moon.  Its caused by the regular sputtering of gases from the crust and mantle due to decay.  One can use spectroscopy to see this.  That is aside from the direct visual evidence.  What evidence do you have that there is no atmosphere on the moon?

The biomass is also believed to be regularly expelled and is known in its dry form manna and in its wet form as blood rain.  These are both often red which is why at times one can see the biomass of the moon turn red as it expels its dead matter.  These samples contain elements found on the moon including Na and K both of which we can use spectroscopy to verify their origin.

LOLWTF are you saying??

This is my evidence:
http://W1NGXL3wc0M

Give me yours

Do you disagree that there is an atmosphere on the moon and where is your evidence?

Do you think is simpler to think that the eclipse is due to the earth or due to "The biomass is also believed to be regularly expelled and is known in its dry form manna and in its wet form as blood rain.  These are both often red which is why at times one can see the biomass of the moon turn red as it expels its dead matter."

Blood rain? Also BELIAVED regularly expelled?? Dead Matter??? But WTF?? It is a giant rock!
Do you disagree that there is an atmosphere on the moon and where is your evidence?

Do you still hold we are not accelerating just because you "don't feel it"?

Why is it when I miss a question out I'm a troll, but you continue to dodge my questions?

I know that there is a very tenuos atmosphere on the moon but... how can you say that it has a weather system and that this weather system causes predictable eclipses?? How can be possible that weather system produces that dark shadows on the surface?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 20, 2010, 12:23:02 PM
The moons light is that of its biomass.  A weather system exists on the moon that periodically travels across its surface and causes the effect of a lunar eclipse.

I'm sorry I forgot to answer that question.  I'm not a troll and I'm also not put on this earth to answer all your questions at your whim.  You aren't entitled to answers, and frankly given your demeanor and lack of any attempt at being polite I don't see why I should continue to go out of my way to help you understand theories that you can read about using the search function.

Surely you have proof of "biomass" and "moon weather system", beacause, you know, there is no atmosphere on the moon.
Actually, there is an atmosphere on the moon.  Its caused by the regular sputtering of gases from the crust and mantle due to decay.  One can use spectroscopy to see this.  That is aside from the direct visual evidence.  What evidence do you have that there is no atmosphere on the moon?

The biomass is also believed to be regularly expelled and is known in its dry form manna and in its wet form as blood rain.  These are both often red which is why at times one can see the biomass of the moon turn red as it expels its dead matter.  These samples contain elements found on the moon including Na and K both of which we can use spectroscopy to verify their origin.

LOLWTF are you saying??

This is my evidence:
http://W1NGXL3wc0M

Give me yours

Do you disagree that there is an atmosphere on the moon and where is your evidence?

Do you think is simpler to think that the eclipse is due to the earth or due to "The biomass is also believed to be regularly expelled and is known in its dry form manna and in its wet form as blood rain.  These are both often red which is why at times one can see the biomass of the moon turn red as it expels its dead matter."

Blood rain? Also BELIAVED regularly expelled?? Dead Matter??? But WTF?? It is a giant rock!
Do you disagree that there is an atmosphere on the moon and where is your evidence?

Do you still hold we are not accelerating just because you "don't feel it"?

Why is it when I miss a question out I'm a troll, but you continue to dodge my questions?

I know that there is a very tenuos atmosphere on the moon but... how can you say that it has a weather system and that this weather system causes predictable eclipses?? How can be possible that weather system produces that dark shadows on the surface?
And the acceleration?

The weather system is clearly visible with your naked eye.  Why wouldn't a weather system cause shadows?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 20, 2010, 12:26:40 PM
That is evidence that it might be possible to fit that aspect into the greater work of FET if it were true, but it is not evidence that FET is true and RET is not.
Given a round earth one would expect gravitational pull to diminish as one reaches higher altitudes.

Where is the evidence that acceleration is constant regardless of altitude?
I have just supplied a very easy test that anyone can perform, given proper knowledge of the area.

wait, I thought you believed that the heavens pulled up on the mass on earth. Also, does that mean you think the measured differences in acceleration are human error?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 12:28:41 PM
bad post
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 20, 2010, 12:29:31 PM
That is evidence that it might be possible to fit that aspect into the greater work of FET if it were true, but it is not evidence that FET is true and RET is not.
Given a round earth one would expect gravitational pull to diminish as one reaches higher altitudes.

Where is the evidence that acceleration is constant regardless of altitude?
I have just supplied a very easy test that anyone can perform, given proper knowledge of the area.

wait, I thought you believed that the heavens pulled up on the mass on earth. Also, does that mean you think the measured differences in acceleration are human error?
Apologies, hence the "given proper knowledge of the area" was meant to hint that one would have to take local geology and geography into account.  One can determine the pull of the heavens to account for them too.  
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 12:29:40 PM
And the acceleration?

The weather system is clearly visible with your naked eye.  Why wouldn't a weather system cause shadows?

Man, the weather system that you "clearly see" on the moon is the one on the earth. Damn. And how can a chaotic weather system produce really dark shadows with perfect round edges?? And that is even predictable down to milliseconds?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 20, 2010, 12:30:42 PM
The moons light is that of its biomass.  A weather system exists on the moon that periodically travels across its surface and causes the effect of a lunar eclipse.

I'm sorry I forgot to answer that question.  I'm not a troll and I'm also not put on this earth to answer all your questions at your whim.  You aren't entitled to answers, and frankly given your demeanor and lack of any attempt at being polite I don't see why I should continue to go out of my way to help you understand theories that you can read about using the search function.

Surely you have proof of "biomass" and "moon weather system", beacause, you know, there is no atmosphere on the moon.
Actually, there is an atmosphere on the moon.  Its caused by the regular sputtering of gases from the crust and mantle due to decay.  One can use spectroscopy to see this.  That is aside from the direct visual evidence.  What evidence do you have that there is no atmosphere on the moon?

The biomass is also believed to be regularly expelled and is known in its dry form manna and in its wet form as blood rain.  These are both often red which is why at times one can see the biomass of the moon turn red as it expels its dead matter.  These samples contain elements found on the moon including Na and K both of which we can use spectroscopy to verify their origin.

LOLWTF are you saying??

This is my evidence:
http://W1NGXL3wc0M

Give me yours

Do you disagree that there is an atmosphere on the moon and where is your evidence?

Do you think is simpler to think that the eclipse is due to the earth or due to "The biomass is also believed to be regularly expelled and is known in its dry form manna and in its wet form as blood rain.  These are both often red which is why at times one can see the biomass of the moon turn red as it expels its dead matter."

Blood rain? Also BELIAVED regularly expelled?? Dead Matter??? But WTF?? It is a giant rock!
Do you disagree that there is an atmosphere on the moon and where is your evidence?

Do you still hold we are not accelerating just because you "don't feel it"?

Why is it when I miss a question out I'm a troll, but you continue to dodge my questions?

I know that there is a very tenuos atmosphere on the moon but... how can you say that it has a weather system and that this weather system causes predictable eclipses?? How can be possible that weather system produces that dark shadows on the surface?
And the acceleration?

The weather system is clearly visible with your naked eye.  Why wouldn't a weather system cause shadows?

Man, the weather system that you "clearly see" on the moon is the one on the earth. Damn. And how can a chaotic weather system produce really dark shadows with perfect round edges?? And that is even predictable down to milliseconds?
I'd hardly call the edges perfect, the conform as they fly over the moonscape.

Its also not chaotic for reasons you mention: the atmosphere on the moon is very weak.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 20, 2010, 12:33:46 PM
I still fail to reason why you think the lunar landings must be a hoax...
Also, why don't you believe the equivalence of masses, I thought you accepted einstein
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 20, 2010, 12:41:16 PM
I still fail to reason why you think the lunar landings must be a hoax...
Also, why don't you believe the equivalence of masses, I thought you accepted einstein
I don't think it was a hoax.  I think they are incompetent.  They bring back petrified biomass from the moon and mistake it for a rock.  Really?

I believe I was referring to another model as I assumed you were asking about it.  If you could clarify the statement I made concerning this, I'd be happy to explain.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 20, 2010, 12:48:12 PM
I still fail to reason why you think the lunar landings must be a hoax...
Also, why don't you believe the equivalence of masses, I thought you accepted einstein
I don't think it was a hoax.  I think they are incompetent.  They bring back petrified biomass from the moon and mistake it for a rock.  Really?

I believe I was referring to another model as I assumed you were asking about it.  If you could clarify the statement I made concerning this, I'd be happy to explain.

Ok I understand your position better. so what evidence do you have that it was biomass? wouldn't we be able to see the cells?
also, what evidence do we have of water and an atmosphere rich in CO2 that would be necessary for plant life? also, why is it gray.
Is this some other type of life? and if it wasn't fake, then why did they reach microgravity?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 20, 2010, 12:57:39 PM

I'd hardly call the edges perfect, the conform as they fly over the moonscape.

Its also not chaotic for reasons you mention: the atmosphere on the moon is very weak.
(http://www.ratical.org/ratical/LunarEclipse3.jpg)
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 20, 2010, 01:05:12 PM
That is evidence that it might be possible to fit that aspect into the greater work of FET if it were true, but it is not evidence that FET is true and RET is not.
Given a round earth one would expect gravitational pull to diminish as one reaches higher altitudes.

Where is the evidence that acceleration is constant regardless of altitude?
I have just supplied a very easy test that anyone can perform, given proper knowledge of the area.

wait, I thought you believed that the heavens pulled up on the mass on earth. Also, does that mean you think the measured differences in acceleration are human error?
Apologies, hence the "given proper knowledge of the area" was meant to hint that one would have to take local geology and geography into account.  One can determine the pull of the heavens to account for them too.  
If one area had more pull then the others, mass would clump into that region. eventually leading to a super massive black hole.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 20, 2010, 01:39:55 PM
I still fail to reason why you think the lunar landings must be a hoax...
Also, why don't you believe the equivalence of masses, I thought you accepted einstein
I don't think it was a hoax.  I think they are incompetent.  They bring back petrified biomass from the moon and mistake it for a rock.  Really?

I believe I was referring to another model as I assumed you were asking about it.  If you could clarify the statement I made concerning this, I'd be happy to explain.

Ok I understand your position better. so what evidence do you have that it was biomass? wouldn't we be able to see the cells?
also, what evidence do we have of water and an atmosphere rich in CO2 that would be necessary for plant life? also, why is it gray.
Is this some other type of life? and if it wasn't fake, then why did they reach microgravity?
Experts have said it was biomass.  It made most the major news outlets.  It also is clearly red, as is symptomatic of dead moon life.

I doubt it is plant life.

If what wasn't fake?

Running to the pool, be back later to respond to the other posts
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 20, 2010, 01:43:36 PM

I'd hardly call the edges perfect, the conform as they fly over the moonscape.

Its also not chaotic for reasons you mention: the atmosphere on the moon is very weak.
(http://www.ratical.org/ratical/LunarEclipse3.jpg)

Even in that picture you can see the edges that sometimes jut out forward due to the local geography.  I'll outline them when I return.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 20, 2010, 01:53:58 PM
(http://i45.tinypic.com/1z4l2z4.png)
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 20, 2010, 02:41:09 PM

If one area had more pull then the others, mass would clump into that region. eventually leading to a super massive black hole.
It would have to have sufficiently more.  Gravitation is the weakest force.

Unless you talk of the heavens, in which case they are expanding.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 20, 2010, 07:11:09 PM
I still fail to reason why you think the lunar landings must be a hoax...
Also, why don't you believe the equivalence of masses, I thought you accepted einstein
I don't think it was a hoax.  I think they are incompetent.  They bring back petrified biomass from the moon and mistake it for a rock.  Really?

I believe I was referring to another model as I assumed you were asking about it.  If you could clarify the statement I made concerning this, I'd be happy to explain.

Ok I understand your position better. so what evidence do you have that it was biomass? wouldn't we be able to see the cells?
also, what evidence do we have of water and an atmosphere rich in CO2 that would be necessary for plant life? also, why is it gray.
Is this some other type of life? and if it wasn't fake, then why did they reach microgravity?
Experts have said it was biomass.  It made most the major news outlets.  It also is clearly red, as is symptomatic of dead moon life.

I doubt it is plant life.

If what wasn't fake?

Running to the pool, be back later to respond to the other posts
source?
also, how do you explain microgravity?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 21, 2010, 12:36:04 AM


Look, no possible weather system.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 21, 2010, 12:44:26 AM


Look, no possible weather system.
That shows nothing of the existence or non-existence of a weather system.

So, what about that acceleration?  Do you still hold we are not accelerating?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 21, 2010, 02:15:50 AM


Look, no possible weather system.
That shows nothing of the existence or non-existence of a weather system.

So, what about that acceleration?  Do you still hold we are not accelerating?

Yeah we are not accelerating. Surely we are not accelerating as your UA theory with no evidence at all says.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 21, 2010, 02:22:34 AM
Yeah we are not accelerating.
What does g equal again?  I was under the impression you lot believed we were stuck to the earth due to gravity.  I take it you are taking an uncommon view?

Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 21, 2010, 02:49:03 AM
Yeah we are not accelerating.
What does g equal again?  I was under the impression you lot believed we were stuck to the earth due to gravity.  I take it you are taking an uncommon view?



What are you saying? We were stuck to the earth because huge masses cause space distortion.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: G.Oak on June 21, 2010, 03:08:15 AM
Yeah we are not accelerating.
What does g equal again?  I was under the impression you lot believed we were stuck to the earth due to gravity.  I take it you are taking an uncommon view?



What are you saying? We were stuck to the earth because huge masses cause space distortion.
wat.
g equals nine point eight meters per second per second. That's acceleration. I can back that up with a great deal of evidence, son, and none of my photos are shopped.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 21, 2010, 03:22:54 AM
Yeah we are not accelerating.
What does g equal again?  I was under the impression you lot believed we were stuck to the earth due to gravity.  I take it you are taking an uncommon view?



What are you saying? We were stuck to the earth because huge masses cause space distortion.
wat.
g equals nine point eight meters per second per second. That's acceleration. I can back that up with a great deal of evidence, son, and none of my photos are shopped.

Yes captain obvious, i know. I think he wants to know what is the cause of this acceleration.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 21, 2010, 03:42:54 AM
Yeah we are not accelerating.
What does g equal again?  I was under the impression you lot believed we were stuck to the earth due to gravity.  I take it you are taking an uncommon view?



What are you saying? We were stuck to the earth because huge masses cause space distortion.
wat.
g equals nine point eight meters per second per second. That's acceleration. I can back that up with a great deal of evidence, son, and none of my photos are shopped.

Yes captain obvious, i know. I think he wants to know what is the cause of this acceleration.
No, you claimed we were not accelerating because you "didn't feel it". 
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 21, 2010, 03:50:37 AM
Yeah we are not accelerating.
What does g equal again?  I was under the impression you lot believed we were stuck to the earth due to gravity.  I take it you are taking an uncommon view?



What are you saying? We were stuck to the earth because huge masses cause space distortion.
wat.
g equals nine point eight meters per second per second. That's acceleration. I can back that up with a great deal of evidence, son, and none of my photos are shopped.

Yes captain obvious, i know. I think he wants to know what is the cause of this acceleration.
No, you claimed we were not accelerating because you "didn't feel it". 

Yes i said it. You always say that only what you feel is true. So, i dont feel acceleration, but it happens. This is the proof that you cannot believe entirely on your raw senses to understand reality.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 21, 2010, 03:53:52 AM
So to recap the moon has no atmosphere, but it does and we aren't accelerating, but we are.

And zetetics apparently don't own gravimeters or accelerometers.

And you call us trolls.  ::)
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 21, 2010, 05:05:30 AM
So to recap the moon has no atmosphere, but it does and we aren't accelerating, but we are.

And zetetics apparently don't own gravimeters or accelerometers.

And you call us trolls.  ::)

To recap: the moon has a very tiny atmospehere and no weather system. We arent accelerating, and surely not thanks to UA. Zetetics owns only the instruments they like, and discard all that dont like.

Yessir, FEs are troll.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 21, 2010, 07:06:57 AM
We arent accelerating
So, i dont feel acceleration, but it happens.
Yeah we are not accelerating.

You hardly know what you believe and we are expected to take abuse from you about what we believe?

source?
also, how do you explain microgravity?
I'll see if I can dig up the article.  They gave it to a foreign leader as a good will gift.

microgravity does not conflict with my beliefs.  I don't believe in UA.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 21, 2010, 07:09:20 AM
So to recap the moon has no atmosphere, but it does and we aren't accelerating, but we are.

And zetetics apparently don't own gravimeters or accelerometers.

And you call us trolls.  ::)

To recap: the moon has a very tiny atmospehere and no weather system. We arent accelerating, and surely not thanks to UA. Zetetics owns only the instruments they like, and discard all that dont like.

Yessir, FEs are troll.
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that zetetics discard instruments they "don't like"?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 21, 2010, 07:10:10 AM
We arent accelerating
So, i dont feel acceleration, but it happens.
Yeah we are not accelerating.

You hardly know what you believe and we are expected to take abuse from you about what we believe?

source?
also, how do you explain microgravity?
I'll see if I can dig up the article.  They gave it to a foreign leader as a good will gift.

microgravity does not conflict with my beliefs.  I don't believe in UA.

Ok, i know, you are the one playing on words just to dont answer. And what "we" refers to? I think to earth: earth is not accelerating.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: General Disarray on June 21, 2010, 07:11:08 AM
Just so you know, we are actually accelerating regardless of the shape of the earth.

However I do find it extremely hard to believe that there is life on the moon, and even harder to believe that it is luminescent and migrates in exactly in the patterns we would see if the earth were round and orbiting the sun with the moon in orbit around us.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 21, 2010, 07:12:36 AM
So to recap the moon has no atmosphere, but it does and we aren't accelerating, but we are.

And zetetics apparently don't own gravimeters or accelerometers.

And you call us trolls.  ::)

To recap: the moon has a very tiny atmospehere and no weather system. We arent accelerating, and surely not thanks to UA. Zetetics owns only the instruments they like, and discard all that dont like.

Yessir, FEs are troll.
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that zetetics discard instruments they "don't like"?

Yes. They dont like every instruments proving the earth is round, like satellites, GPS, shuttles, telescopes, lunar modules, LRO, LCROSS, and so many others that surely i am forgiving.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 21, 2010, 07:15:24 AM
Just so you know, we are actually accelerating regardless of the shape of the earth.

However I do find it extremely hard to believe that there is life on the moon, and even harder to believe that it is luminescent and migrates in exactly in the patterns we would see if the earth were round and orbiting the sun with the moon in orbit around us.

Sorry man, the earth is accelerating?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: General Disarray on June 21, 2010, 07:18:32 AM
Just so you know, we are actually accelerating regardless of the shape of the earth.

However I do find it extremely hard to believe that there is life on the moon, and even harder to believe that it is luminescent and migrates in exactly in the patterns we would see if the earth were round and orbiting the sun with the moon in orbit around us.

Sorry man, the earth is accelerating?

We are accelerating directly downwards at 9.81 m/s2, that's what keeps us stuck to the ground, that's what gravity is.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 21, 2010, 07:40:25 AM
Just so you know, we are actually accelerating regardless of the shape of the earth.

However I do find it extremely hard to believe that there is life on the moon, and even harder to believe that it is luminescent and migrates in exactly in the patterns we would see if the earth were round and orbiting the sun with the moon in orbit around us.

Sorry man, the earth is accelerating?

We are accelerating directly downwards at 9.81 m/s2, that's what keeps us stuck to the ground, that's what gravity is.

Yes, but because of space-time distortion due to huge masses, not because of UA.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: General Disarray on June 21, 2010, 07:43:26 AM
Which is the difference between the RE model and theirs, but we are accelerating.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 21, 2010, 07:53:14 AM
Just so you know, we are actually accelerating regardless of the shape of the earth.

However I do find it extremely hard to believe that there is life on the moon, and even harder to believe that it is luminescent and migrates in exactly in the patterns we would see if the earth were round and orbiting the sun with the moon in orbit around us.
Of course it doesn't migrate.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 21, 2010, 07:54:47 AM
We arent accelerating
So, i dont feel acceleration, but it happens.
Yeah we are not accelerating.

You hardly know what you believe and we are expected to take abuse from you about what we believe?

source?
also, how do you explain microgravity?
I'll see if I can dig up the article.  They gave it to a foreign leader as a good will gift.

microgravity does not conflict with my beliefs.  I don't believe in UA.

Ok, i know, you are the one playing on words just to dont answer. And what "we" refers to? I think to earth: earth is not accelerating.
I have no issue answering your questions and have repeatedly.

I also am not playing on words.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: General Disarray on June 21, 2010, 08:53:27 AM
Just so you know, we are actually accelerating regardless of the shape of the earth.

However I do find it extremely hard to believe that there is life on the moon, and even harder to believe that it is luminescent and migrates in exactly in the patterns we would see if the earth were round and orbiting the sun with the moon in orbit around us.
Of course it doesn't migrate.

I must be confusing James' model with yours, it is hard to keep them straight. How does the life on the moon produce the light patterns we see, and why do they exactly match up with what we would expect from the RE rotation model?

EDIT: I wouldn't have to ask so many questions if you would fill in the section for your model on the wiki.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 21, 2010, 10:31:09 AM
Anyway man, we are not stuck on the earth because of we are accelerating, but because the earth causes space-time distortion.
We agree on this?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 21, 2010, 12:14:01 PM
Anyway man, we are not stuck on the earth because of we are accelerating, but because the earth causes space-time distortion.
We agree on this?
no.
A) GR is still only one model, that isn't compatible with QM
B) We are still accelerating through Euclidean space.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 21, 2010, 12:26:22 PM
Anyway man, we are not stuck on the earth because of we are accelerating, but because the earth causes space-time distortion.
We agree on this?
no.
A) GR is still only one model, that isn't compatible with QM
B) We are still accelerating through Euclidean space.

Yes but nowadays GR is the best model that fits reality... And you say we are accelerating because of big bang or what? We are accelerating within the solar system. Because the earth, in the solar system, is not accelerating, or it's better saying it is accelerating when it is near the sun and decelerating when it is far.

Am i correct? Just asking, i m not an astrophysic.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 21, 2010, 12:55:51 PM
Anyway man, we are not stuck on the earth because of we are accelerating, but because the earth causes space-time distortion.
We agree on this?
no.
A) GR is still only one model, that isn't compatible with QM
B) We are still accelerating through Euclidean space.

Yes but nowadays GR is the best model that fits reality... And you say we are accelerating because of big bang or what? We are accelerating within the solar system. Because the earth, in the solar system, is not accelerating, or it's better saying it is accelerating when it is near the sun and decelerating when it is far.

Am i correct? Just asking, i m not an astrophysic.
Actually GR is only the best for very large things. QED is equally if not a better theory for small things.
in FEH, GR is revoked completely, as all of the concepts about gravity are denied. relative to the aether we are accelerating up wards at a rate of g along with the heavens.  the sun and moon are circling above the earth like vultures. In GR and the rest of physics, the aether doesn't exist. also, the Earth is always accelerating around the sun. acceleration is not only change in speed, but change in direction. now of course according to GR, the earth isn't accelerating at all, but rather going straight along the geodesic of space-time.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 21, 2010, 01:04:55 PM
Anyway man, we are not stuck on the earth because of we are accelerating, but because the earth causes space-time distortion.
We agree on this?
no.
A) GR is still only one model, that isn't compatible with QM
B) We are still accelerating through Euclidean space.

Yes but nowadays GR is the best model that fits reality... And you say we are accelerating because of big bang or what? We are accelerating within the solar system. Because the earth, in the solar system, is not accelerating, or it's better saying it is accelerating when it is near the sun and decelerating when it is far.

Am i correct? Just asking, i m not an astrophysic.
Actually GR is only the best for very large things. QED is equally if not a better theory for small things.
in FEH, GR is revoked completely, as all of the concepts about gravity are denied. relative to the aether we are accelerating up wards at a rate of g along with the heavens.  the sun and moon are circling above the earth like vultures. In GR and the rest of physics, the aether doesn't exist. also, the Earth is always accelerating around the sun. acceleration is not only change in speed, but change in direction. now of course according to GR, the earth isn't accelerating at all, but rather going straight along the geodesic of space-time.

Really things get gomplicated...
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 21, 2010, 01:25:33 PM
Anyway man, we are not stuck on the earth because of we are accelerating, but because the earth causes space-time distortion.
We agree on this?
no.
A) GR is still only one model, that isn't compatible with QM
B) We are still accelerating through Euclidean space.

Yes but nowadays GR is the best model that fits reality... And you say we are accelerating because of big bang or what? We are accelerating within the solar system. Because the earth, in the solar system, is not accelerating, or it's better saying it is accelerating when it is near the sun and decelerating when it is far.

Am i correct? Just asking, i m not an astrophysic.
Actually GR is only the best for very large things. QED is equally if not a better theory for small things.
in FEH, GR is revoked completely, as all of the concepts about gravity are denied. relative to the aether we are accelerating up wards at a rate of g along with the heavens.  the sun and moon are circling above the earth like vultures. In GR and the rest of physics, the aether doesn't exist. also, the Earth is always accelerating around the sun. acceleration is not only change in speed, but change in direction. now of course according to GR, the earth isn't accelerating at all, but rather going straight along the geodesic of space-time.

Really things get gomplicated...
Yeah you're telling me. GR is basically bendy space theory.
what I really hate about the FE use of SR and GR, is that first relies on experiments carried out in space aka the lasers, and the latter requires gravity
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 21, 2010, 01:30:44 PM
The ether exists in relativity.  See: Ether and the Theory of Relativity, Einstein

Relativity can exist within fet.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 21, 2010, 01:43:49 PM
The ether exists in relativity.  See: Ether and the Theory of Relativity, Einstein

Relativity can exist within fet.
No it doesn't:
"The general attitude to this amongst physicists today is that although it is purely a matter of semantics, Einstein's comments stretch the word "aether" too far: it is argued that an "aether" with no mechanical properties doesn't correspond to the historical idea of aether, and so it is potentially misleading to apply this name to the spacetime field of general relativity"

"Today the idea of aether, what Albert Michelson called "one of the grandest generalizations of modern science", is regarded as a superseded scientific theory."

Thanks for playing.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 22, 2010, 01:37:56 AM
Anyway man, we are not stuck on the earth because of we are accelerating, but because the earth causes space-time distortion.
We agree on this?
Thats not exactly true; 

One can have flat spacetime and still have gravitational pull.  Consider the equivalence principle.  If no tidal forces are present, then spacetime is flat.  Even though spacetime is flat, we still note gravitational pull (or a uniform accelerating FoR.)
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 22, 2010, 01:44:02 AM
The ether exists in relativity.  See: Ether and the Theory of Relativity, Einstein

Relativity can exist within fet.
No it doesn't:
"The general attitude to this amongst physicists today is that although it is purely a matter of semantics, Einstein's comments stretch the word "aether" too far: it is argued that an "aether" with no mechanical properties doesn't correspond to the historical idea of aether, and so it is potentially misleading to apply this name to the spacetime field of general relativity"

"Today the idea of aether, what Albert Michelson called "one of the grandest generalizations of modern science", is regarded as a superseded scientific theory."

Thanks for playing.
Not at all.  Einsteins ether has mechanical properties: "To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view."

Your issue is that you are saying Luminiferous aether is what we are talking about.  It is not.  Even if it was, it was not disproven.

The issue is people don't like the word.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: General Disarray on June 22, 2010, 06:03:52 AM
How does the life on the moon produce the light patterns we see, and why do they exactly match up with what we would expect from the RE rotation model?

EDIT: I wouldn't have to ask so many questions if you would fill in the section for your model on the wiki.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 22, 2010, 11:19:58 AM
How does the life on the moon produce the light patterns we see, and why do they exactly match up with what we would expect from the RE rotation model?

EDIT: I wouldn't have to ask so many questions if you would fill in the section for your model on the wiki.
Sorry meant to answer that and must have just forgotten.  Eclipses and the moon phases are due to a weather pattern that passes over the moon.  These are regular cyclical events that happen based on gravitational influences, much like tides on the Earth.

THe red happens at the end of the biomasses life cycle.

I'll try to fill in my wiki page this week.  I've got a huge contract thats over due, but after that will have a lot of time for flat earth.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 22, 2010, 12:34:36 PM
The ether exists in relativity.  See: Ether and the Theory of Relativity, Einstein

Relativity can exist within fet.
No it doesn't:
"The general attitude to this amongst physicists today is that although it is purely a matter of semantics, Einstein's comments stretch the word "aether" too far: it is argued that an "aether" with no mechanical properties doesn't correspond to the historical idea of aether, and so it is potentially misleading to apply this name to the spacetime field of general relativity"

"Today the idea of aether, what Albert Michelson called "one of the grandest generalizations of modern science", is regarded as a superseded scientific theory."

Thanks for playing.
Not at all.  Einsteins ether has mechanical properties: "To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view."

Your issue is that you are saying Luminiferous aether is what we are talking about.  It is not.  Even if it was, it was not disproven.

The issue is people don't like the word.
no, the theory of aether is wrong.
aether as the universal inertial reference frame is wrong.
aether as the medium for light is wrong
aether as the fifth element is wrong


"In physics  there is no concept considered exactly analogous to the aether"

"The general attitude to this amongst physicists[who?]  today is that although it is purely a matter of semantics, Einstein's comments stretch the word "aether" too far: it is argued that an "aether" with no mechanical properties doesn't correspond to the historical idea of aether, and so it is potentially misleading to apply this name to the spacetime field of general relativity"

"Hendrik Lorentz and George Francis FitzGerald offered within the framework of Lorentz ether theory a more elegant solution to how the motion of an absolute aether could be undetectable (length contraction), but if their equations were correct, Albert Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity could generate the same mathematics without referring to an aether at all. This led most physicists to conclude that the classical notion of aether was not a useful concept."

It doesn't take a genius of reading comprehension to figure out the old idea of aether is wrong.
it is current in name only
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 22, 2010, 02:08:31 PM
The ether exists in relativity.  See: Ether and the Theory of Relativity, Einstein

Relativity can exist within fet.
No it doesn't:
"The general attitude to this amongst physicists today is that although it is purely a matter of semantics, Einstein's comments stretch the word "aether" too far: it is argued that an "aether" with no mechanical properties doesn't correspond to the historical idea of aether, and so it is potentially misleading to apply this name to the spacetime field of general relativity"

"Today the idea of aether, what Albert Michelson called "one of the grandest generalizations of modern science", is regarded as a superseded scientific theory."

Thanks for playing.
Not at all.  Einsteins ether has mechanical properties: "To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view."

Your issue is that you are saying Luminiferous aether is what we are talking about.  It is not.  Even if it was, it was not disproven.

The issue is people don't like the word.
no, the theory of aether is wrong.
aether as the universal inertial reference frame is wrong.
aether as the medium for light is wrong
aether as the fifth element is wrong


"In physics  there is no concept considered exactly analogous to the aether"

"The general attitude to this amongst physicists[who?]  today is that although it is purely a matter of semantics, Einstein's comments stretch the word "aether" too far: it is argued that an "aether" with no mechanical properties doesn't correspond to the historical idea of aether, and so it is potentially misleading to apply this name to the spacetime field of general relativity"

"Hendrik Lorentz and George Francis FitzGerald offered within the framework of Lorentz ether theory a more elegant solution to how the motion of an absolute aether could be undetectable (length contraction), but if their equations were correct, Albert Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity could generate the same mathematics without referring to an aether at all. This led most physicists to conclude that the classical notion of aether was not a useful concept."

It doesn't take a genius of reading comprehension to figure out the old idea of aether is wrong.
it is current in name only
Obviously the older ideas of ether are incorrect.  No one said it wasn't.  Einsteins is not.

It doesn't take anyone of any real worth to realize the climate in the scientific community. Personal talks with Dr. Wang of Dispersive Extinction theory clarify his use of the word "space medium" instead of ether - I feel this is relevant:
Quote
The "aether" is currently a politically incorrect term, although personaly I am quite open to the concept. Centuries ago, people would laugh at you if you declared that air was a substance. Know[sic] it is a common knowledge. It is naive to believe that the outer space is an absolute void. However, to avoid the argument with the reviewers, i did not use the term "eather"[sic?] in the paper. Instead I used a less offensive term "space medium" which is accepted by the astrophysics community.

Ironically, although the Big Bang theory is built upon the theory of relativity that disproves the concept of eather, the Big Bang theorists are now smuggling in an absolute coordinate system, which they called "preferred system" supposedly at rest with the cosmic background radiation (CBR).

I do believe the CBR is an evidence of the exsistence of eather whose temperature around the solar system is 2.7 K.
5/7/08 as transcribed in Notebook Group 4.

Space medium, or quantum foam, or preferred system, or whatever you want to call it, it exists. 

If you wish to have a semantics argument and cry that its called something else, feel free.  Just don't expect me to take you seriously.

Now lets examine your uncited quotes:
For all I know some hobo on 4th street told you "In physics  there is no concept considered exactly analogous to the aether".  However, its obvious you just took that from Wikipedia.  It should be noted there are modern versions of aether theory that are reasonably exceptable use the name aether and are simply not within your limited research capabilities (which clearly are, for the majority, are uncited wikipedia articles.)

"This led most physicists to conclude that the classical notion of aether was not a useful concept."
Its not wrong, its just not particularly more useful as a tool.  Reading comprehension isn't your strong point is it?

"The general attitude to this amongst physicists[who?]  today is that although it is purely a matter of semantics, Einstein's comments stretch the word "aether" too far: it is argued that an "aether" with no mechanical properties doesn't correspond to the historical idea of aether, and so it is potentially misleading to apply this name to the spacetime field of general relativity"
Yes, obviously there is hesitance and prejudice against the word.  However, whether they feel Einstein stretches the word too far or not is irrelevant.  Being the inventor of the theory he has the right to publish and name it as he wishes and I have the right to reference it as such.  Furthermore, as the original article points out, who exactly are these physicists?  Why is this statement not even cited?  Its bad enough you pull it from wikipedia uncited, but honestly you pull it uncited from an uncited entry on wiki.  Fantastic globularist research work.

To think of space to be devoid and barren is sophomoric and silly.  To think it has no physical properties is even more ridiculous.  If you want to quibble over the name people give these properties, fine.    I'll quibble over you not having read any of the work actually concerning ether (under whatever names it has) ever.  Good job trolling from your wikipedia armchair.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: General Disarray on June 22, 2010, 02:11:24 PM
Are you trying to say that just because something might exist that could possibly be described as "aether", your theories about the properties of the aether are correct?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 22, 2010, 03:36:36 PM
Are you trying to say that just because something might exist that could possibly be described as "aether", your theories about the properties of the aether are correct?

No, I'm saying ether exists in relativity.  Directly from the lectures, notes, letters, and papers of Einstein.  Just because the word ether has a bad rap doesn't mean it is not included in relativity as the physical properties of space.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: James on June 22, 2010, 05:44:10 PM
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that zetetics discard instruments they "don't like"?

As a matter of fact, I have on Bullhorn's advice eschewed both the sextant and the astrolabe, but fortunately I require neither in order to conduct my zetetic studies.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 22, 2010, 08:30:56 PM
Are you trying to say that just because something might exist that could possibly be described as "aether", your theories about the properties of the aether are correct?

No, I'm saying ether exists in relativity.  Directly from the lectures, notes, letters, and papers of Einstein.  Just because the word ether has a bad rap doesn't mean it is not included in relativity as the physical properties of space.

no need to be so insulting gees. the point is the old notion of aether is non existant. there are new things that could be called aether, but none have been taken up in the scientific community. The spirit of the matter is that aether is no longer valid
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: SSSavio on June 23, 2010, 01:30:24 AM
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that zetetics discard instruments they "don't like"?

As a matter of fact, I have on Bullhorn's advice eschewed both the sextant and the astrolabe, but fortunately I require neither in order to conduct my zetetic studies.

I know, you can just close your eyes and begin to wonder to run your zetetic experiments.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 23, 2010, 06:17:33 AM
Are you trying to say that just because something might exist that could possibly be described as "aether", your theories about the properties of the aether are correct?

No, I'm saying ether exists in relativity.  Directly from the lectures, notes, letters, and papers of Einstein.  Just because the word ether has a bad rap doesn't mean it is not included in relativity as the physical properties of space.

no need to be so insulting gees. the point is the old notion of aether is non existant. there are new things that could be called aether, but none have been taken up in the scientific community. The spirit of the matter is that aether is no longer valid
And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: markjo on June 23, 2010, 02:33:31 PM
And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 23, 2010, 02:40:37 PM
And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.
Irrelevant.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: markjo on June 23, 2010, 02:51:35 PM
And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.
Irrelevant.
Actually, it is relevant.  FES's own resources don't meet the documentation standards of a source that you are criticizing for not being properly documented.  Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Johannes on June 23, 2010, 03:47:58 PM
And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.
Irrelevant.
Actually, it is relevant.  FES's own resources don't meet the documentation standards of a source that you are criticizing for not being properly documented.  Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.
If you see anything wrong with the wiki, feel free to point it out. But no one has proven anything wrong so far.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: markjo on June 23, 2010, 04:22:42 PM
And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.
Irrelevant.
Actually, it is relevant.  FES's own resources don't meet the documentation standards of a source that you are criticizing for not being properly documented.  Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.
If you see anything wrong with the wiki, feel free to point it out. But no one has proven anything wrong so far.
I'm not commenting on the accuracy of the wiki (at least not in this thread).  Rather I'm commenting on the lack of references cited in most of the article pages.  Since Tom is responsible for about 2/3 of the wiki pages, he is naturally the worst offender, but many of the other pages lack proper reference citations as well.  This goes to the academic integrity of the wiki. 

Just out of curiosity Johannes, as a FEW editor, how much have you contributed to the wiki?  IMHO, the FE wiki is a great idea and has a lot of potential, but it still needs a lot of work before it can be considered academically viable.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: General Disarray on June 23, 2010, 05:34:55 PM
Like perhaps a few sources. The only ones I have seen are just some guy ranting with nothing to back him up.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 23, 2010, 06:43:56 PM
And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.
Irrelevant.
Actually, it is relevant.  FES's own resources don't meet the documentation standards of a source that you are criticizing for not being properly documented.  Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.
Whether I'm being hypocritical actually is irrelevant.  

I don't point people towards our faq usually (unless a new user and in which case it is appropriate not to cite everything as the majority of it is first hand information and usually not meant as zomg proof) or towards our wiki and I didn't write any of the wiki.

All this is completely off topic though as I have cited my sources in this argument.

What you are doing is attacking my history of not posting citations, incorrectly, instead of attacking the argument.   This is obviously ad hom and irrelevant.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: markjo on June 23, 2010, 07:41:57 PM
I don't point people towards our faq usually (unless a new user and in which case it is appropriate not to cite everything as the majority of it is first hand information and usually not meant as zomg proof) or towards our wiki and I didn't write any of the wiki.

Well, actually, you did contribute to the wiki.  OK, you started to, but don't seem to have gotten past the initial outline.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

What you are doing is attacking my history of not posting citations, incorrectly, instead of attacking the argument.   This is obviously ad hom and irrelevant.

No, I'm not attacking your citation habits so much as your attack of Wikipedia's academic integrity when the academic integrity of the official FES wiki leaves much to be desired.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 23, 2010, 11:01:37 PM
And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.
Irrelevant.
It would be special pleading to take the FAQ over Wikipedia
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 23, 2010, 11:14:12 PM
And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.
Irrelevant.
Actually, it is relevant.  FES's own resources don't meet the documentation standards of a source that you are criticizing for not being properly documented.  Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.
If you see anything wrong with the wiki, feel free to point it out. But no one has proven anything wrong so far.

Yes they have. and they will now
example1: the cause of Sunrise sunset due to perspective.
the sun is 3000km high, and the distance between the sun at the north hemispherical summer between to opposite points on 23.5 north is 133/360*40,000km=14,777km. therefore, at midnight, the sun should be arctan (3/14.8)= 11.5 degrees above the horizon.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 24, 2010, 06:19:03 AM
And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.
Irrelevant.
It would be special pleading to take the FAQ over Wikipedia
WHo mentioned the faq?  I quoted a proper scientist as well as Einstein himself.  You quoted uncited garbage opinion.
I don't point people towards our faq usually (unless a new user and in which case it is appropriate not to cite everything as the majority of it is first hand information and usually not meant as zomg proof) or towards our wiki and I didn't write any of the wiki.

Well, actually, you did contribute to the wiki.  OK, you started to, but don't seem to have gotten past the initial outline.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

What you are doing is attacking my history of not posting citations, incorrectly, instead of attacking the argument.   This is obviously ad hom and irrelevant.

No, I'm not attacking your citation habits so much as your attack of Wikipedia's academic integrity when the academic integrity of the official FES wiki leaves much to be desired.
Indeed, I contributed nothing as it is an unfinished article with just an outline.  Unless of course you wanted citations on my outline? Where exactly does this have anything to do with this argument or me?

Furthermore, I'm not criticizing wikipedia, I'm critizing those that don't know how to use it properly.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 24, 2010, 02:25:40 PM
And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.
Irrelevant.
It would be special pleading to take the FAQ over Wikipedia
WHo mentioned the faq?  I quoted a proper scientist as well as Einstein himself.  You quoted uncited garbage opinion.
I don't point people towards our faq usually (unless a new user and in which case it is appropriate not to cite everything as the majority of it is first hand information and usually not meant as zomg proof) or towards our wiki and I didn't write any of the wiki.

Well, actually, you did contribute to the wiki.  OK, you started to, but don't seem to have gotten past the initial outline.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

What you are doing is attacking my history of not posting citations, incorrectly, instead of attacking the argument.   This is obviously ad hom and irrelevant.

No, I'm not attacking your citation habits so much as your attack of Wikipedia's academic integrity when the academic integrity of the official FES wiki leaves much to be desired.
Indeed, I contributed nothing as it is an unfinished article with just an outline.  Unless of course you wanted citations on my outline? Where exactly does this have anything to do with this argument or me?

Furthermore, I'm not criticizing wikipedia, I'm critizing those that don't know how to use it properly.


granted the opinionated bit on Wikipedia isn't reliable, but that doesn't make it false. my point was that when we talk of Aether, we get into semantics now adays. that's because modern aether=/=old aether
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 24, 2010, 05:50:29 PM
And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.
Irrelevant.
It would be special pleading to take the FAQ over Wikipedia
WHo mentioned the faq?  I quoted a proper scientist as well as Einstein himself.  You quoted uncited garbage opinion.
I don't point people towards our faq usually (unless a new user and in which case it is appropriate not to cite everything as the majority of it is first hand information and usually not meant as zomg proof) or towards our wiki and I didn't write any of the wiki.

Well, actually, you did contribute to the wiki.  OK, you started to, but don't seem to have gotten past the initial outline.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

What you are doing is attacking my history of not posting citations, incorrectly, instead of attacking the argument.   This is obviously ad hom and irrelevant.

No, I'm not attacking your citation habits so much as your attack of Wikipedia's academic integrity when the academic integrity of the official FES wiki leaves much to be desired.
Indeed, I contributed nothing as it is an unfinished article with just an outline.  Unless of course you wanted citations on my outline? Where exactly does this have anything to do with this argument or me?

Furthermore, I'm not criticizing wikipedia, I'm critizing those that don't know how to use it properly.


granted the opinionated bit on Wikipedia isn't reliable, but that doesn't make it false. my point was that when we talk of Aether, we get into semantics now adays. that's because modern aether=/=old aether
Yeah, old air =/= modern air either.  old space =/= modern space either.  You could say that about virtually anything.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 24, 2010, 06:58:47 PM
And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.
Irrelevant.
It would be special pleading to take the FAQ over Wikipedia
WHo mentioned the faq?  I quoted a proper scientist as well as Einstein himself.  You quoted uncited garbage opinion.
I don't point people towards our faq usually (unless a new user and in which case it is appropriate not to cite everything as the majority of it is first hand information and usually not meant as zomg proof) or towards our wiki and I didn't write any of the wiki.

Well, actually, you did contribute to the wiki.  OK, you started to, but don't seem to have gotten past the initial outline.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

What you are doing is attacking my history of not posting citations, incorrectly, instead of attacking the argument.   This is obviously ad hom and irrelevant.

No, I'm not attacking your citation habits so much as your attack of Wikipedia's academic integrity when the academic integrity of the official FES wiki leaves much to be desired.
Indeed, I contributed nothing as it is an unfinished article with just an outline.  Unless of course you wanted citations on my outline? Where exactly does this have anything to do with this argument or me?

Furthermore, I'm not criticizing wikipedia, I'm critizing those that don't know how to use it properly.


granted the opinionated bit on Wikipedia isn't reliable, but that doesn't make it false. my point was that when we talk of Aether, we get into semantics now adays. that's because modern aether=/=old aether
Yeah, old air =/= modern air either.  old space =/= modern space either.  You could say that about virtually anything.

No, because air and space were never only scientific concepts like aether. also the composition is what changed in those cases, not the view on their existence. no ones gonna stop using the term air, because it is a part of common speech unlike Aether
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Username on June 24, 2010, 11:40:20 PM
Like I said, if you plan to have some ridiculous semantic argument, don't expect for me to take you seriously.
Title: Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 25, 2010, 12:44:46 AM
Like I said, if you plan to have some ridiculous semantic argument, don't expect for me to take you seriously.
fair enough