The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: General Disarray on June 06, 2011, 09:24:14 PM

Title: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: General Disarray on June 06, 2011, 09:24:14 PM
Quote from: Lord Wilmore
It must be granted that among Zetetics some speculative accounts of certain phenomona are occasionally proposed where insufficient evidence presents itself, and many globularists cry 'hypocrisy' when this occurs. However, this is quite unfair. It is of course in man's nature to speculate, and minds large enough to recognise the epistemological strength of the Zetetic method are of course equally capable of bold thought and great feats of imagination. They cannot be expected to simply 'turn off' the instinctively speculative aspect of the mind. Furthermore, in the absence of sufficient empirical data upon which to draw logical inferences, such speculation is of course permitted, as long as we recognise that such speculation is not in accordance with the Zetetic Method. For an explanation to hold up to scrutiny, it must logically procede from empirical data.

So let's go over a list of the aspects of FET for which no verifiable empirical evidence has been presented (or in some cases experimental evidence directly contradicts):


That's just all I could think of off the top of my head, feel free to add to the list. It is entirely fair to accuse these self-proclaimed "zetetics" of hypocrisy when the vast majority of what they believe has no more observational evidence behind it than "it looks flat".
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: crackpipe larry on June 07, 2011, 12:36:23 AM
Don't forget the atmolayer, that's what protects us..
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: rounder on June 07, 2011, 01:31:18 AM
moonshrimp!
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: John Davis on June 07, 2011, 04:24:42 AM
Any "theory" at all is not strictly zetetic.  Zeteticism deals with facts.  Neozeteticism allows theories.  Most members here are neozetetics and don't even know it.

For example, a zetetic statement about the heavens may say something like "the appearance of the heavens seems to shift over time" whereas a neozetetic statement may go on to explain this as "currently, the heavens seem to shift over time much like that of a geared system."
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 07, 2011, 05:22:49 AM
Then it'd be nice if FE'ers didn't go around calling themselves Zetetcists, but rather "Neozetetcists"/random BS-spewers.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Lord Wilmore on June 07, 2011, 06:04:13 AM
I agree that some of the ideas you list have not been formulated using Zetetic methodology. However, most of them are based on empirical evidence of the kind supported by the Zetetic Method. To suggest otherwise is totally disingenuous.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: General Disarray on June 07, 2011, 07:14:13 AM
I agree that some of the ideas you list have not been formulated using Zetetic methodology. However, most of them are based on empirical evidence of the kind supported by the Zetetic Method. To suggest otherwise is totally disingenuous.

I suggest you are being a bit disingenuous also. None of the things I listed have any evidence for them specifically. The only support for these theories is generally "we know the earth is flat so xxx must be true!"

Any "theory" at all is not strictly zetetic.  Zeteticism deals with facts.  Neozeteticism allows theories.  Most members here are neozetetics and don't even know it.

For example, a zetetic statement about the heavens may say something like "the appearance of the heavens seems to shift over time" whereas a neozetetic statement may go on to explain this as "currently, the heavens seem to shift over time much like that of a geared system."

What, then, is the difference between this "neozeteticism" and science?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: trig on June 07, 2011, 07:21:30 AM
I agree that some of the ideas you list have not been formulated using Zetetic methodology. However, most of them are based on empirical evidence of the kind supported by the Zetetic Method. To suggest otherwise is totally disingenuous.
Please write the list and tell us which have Zetetic something, which have neo-Zetetic anything and which are pure science, to be compared with other scientific theories on their scientific merits.

That word "some" makes the whole statement worthless.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on June 07, 2011, 07:25:13 AM
Any "theory" at all is not strictly zetetic.  Zeteticism deals with facts.  Neozeteticism allows theories.  Most members here are neozetetics and don't even know it.

For example, a zetetic statement about the heavens may say something like "the appearance of the heavens seems to shift over time" whereas a neozetetic statement may go on to explain this as "currently, the heavens seem to shift over time much like that of a geared system."

Don't forget that some of the zetetics/neozetetics are also pseudoskeptics.  Pseudoskepticism allows them to deny any and all evidence (no matter how damning) that contradicts their own theories without any proper refutation.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 07, 2011, 07:42:46 AM
Zeteticism is the easy way out. It's a way of getting around the fact that you don't really have anything to support your claims. The only person who has any real idea of what it is, is John and he doesn't even call himself one.

I believe I asked Wilmore to explain something to me and his response was something along the lines of, "Have you forgotten that I'm a Zetetic? I'm not just going to throw around hypotheses." Yes, having to explain why you think something is, is such a bother on people who are supposedly trying to be scientific, be it mainstream or Zetetic.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: three-dimensional-world on June 07, 2011, 08:45:13 AM
can you just give a simple explanation of zeteticsm?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 07, 2011, 08:50:45 AM
can you just give a simple explanation of zeteticsm?
Observation.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: General Disarray on June 07, 2011, 08:57:41 AM
Wilmore gives a pretty good overview of how it is supposed to work in his post in the believers section. Unfortunately, no one here actually does it that way.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 07, 2011, 09:31:25 AM
Zeteticism deals with facts oversvations which they prematurely claim are facts before testing/observing further to verify said observation-based facts.

Fixed, by the way.  You had it wrong.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 07, 2011, 09:46:29 AM
How can Zeteticism be peer reviewed? How can someone else verify what your observation is? Also, what does a color-blind Zetetic do? Or a blind one?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 07, 2011, 09:46:39 AM
The Universal Accelerator is Zetetic.

When I get up on a chair and walk off the edge I can see that the earth rises up towards me. I can directly observe that the earth is moving upwards. This is an empirical observation.

I cannot see graviton particles or bendy space. There is no direct empirical evidence that sub-atomic particles are pulling me towards the surface of thee earth or that the fabric of space is bending. Hence, there is no reason to support those ideas over one which is directly observable.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 07, 2011, 09:55:11 AM
Have you observed anything that makes the Earth move upwards? I think not.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: three-dimensional-world on June 07, 2011, 10:06:07 AM
 :-[ :-[ nobody gives a simple explanation

Second question: Has anyone ever observed zeteticism?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 07, 2011, 10:17:17 AM
:-[ :-[ nobody gives a simple explanation

Second question: Has anyone ever observed zeteticism?
Mine was the simplest possible explanation.

No, no one has because no one on this site actually follows it correctly.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Horatio on June 07, 2011, 10:36:30 AM
Tom is aware, of course, that the Earth does not "rise up" at the same rate over the entire planet.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on June 07, 2011, 10:54:56 AM
The Universal Accelerator is Zetetic.

When I get up on a chair and walk off the edge I can see that the earth rises up towards me. I can directly observe that the earth is moving upwards. This is an empirical observation.

Unfortunately this completely ignores the equivalence principle that clearly states that this experiment is inconclusive.

I cannot see graviton particles or bendy space. There is no direct empirical evidence that sub-atomic particles are pulling me towards the surface of thee earth or that the fabric of space is bending. Hence, there is no reason to support those ideas over one which is directly observable.

You can not see the universal accelerator that pushes the earth up to meet you either, yet you seem to be convinced that it exists.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Moon squirter on June 07, 2011, 11:20:01 AM
Zeteticism is observation and nothing else (as sillyrob, etc have already said):

1. The moment you start reasoning it is no-longer zeteticism, because you are formulating a hypothosis.
2. The moment you start experimenting it is no-longer zeteticism, because you are testing a hypothosis.

Tom has reasoned (hypothesised) that the earth is accelerating upwards.  I think this is wrong because:

1. Acceleration is a vector quantity - It could be Tom or the earth doing the accelerating.
2. He has used the fact that graviton have not been observed in his reasoning.  This is irrelevant.
2. Hypothetically, gravity may be discovered by Tom later on. There are other observable forces of attraction that cannot be easily explained (electromagnetism), so we cannot rule out another.


Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: General Disarray on June 07, 2011, 11:31:25 AM
Tom demonstrates just how easy it is for a zetetic to misunderstand their own methodology.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: crackpipe larry on June 07, 2011, 12:13:38 PM
Tom demonstrates just how easy it is for a zetetic to misunderstand their own methodology.

As punishment, He shall be made to wear the "Roman helmet"
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 07, 2011, 01:18:49 PM
Have you observed anything that makes the Earth move upwards? I think not.

No. I make no claim regarding what pushes up the earth. I can only make the empirical observation that when I walk off the edge of a chair the earth rises up towards me.

Quote
Tom is aware, of course, that the Earth does not "rise up" at the same rate over the entire planet.

The variations of g at different locations is so slight that the difference is well within experimental error. Accelerometers aren't exactly known to be perfectly accurate.

Quote from: markjo
Unfortunately this completely ignores the equivalence principle that clearly states that this experiment is inconclusive.

It's not ignoring it at all. The equivalence principal might say that imaginary graviton puller particles are indistinguishable from an upwardly rising earth. But of those two options only an upwardly rising earth is directly observable. When I step off the edge of a chair I can see, directly, that the earth rises upwards. No one can observe graviton puller particles. Graviton puller particles are a complete and utter fantasy which no one has observed or experienced.

This is why an upwardly moving earth is the stronger opponent. There is empirical, observable evidence behind it.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 07, 2011, 02:00:52 PM
But tom, myself and others have observed falling when walking out of a chair, so explain that.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: General Disarray on June 07, 2011, 02:24:45 PM
The exact phrase I used was "The Universal Accelerator", as in the force that supposedly accelerates the earth in FET. You may think you have observed its effects, but you have not observed it directly.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Moon squirter on June 07, 2011, 02:26:58 PM
When I step off the edge of a chair I can see, directly, that the earth rises upwards. No one can observe graviton puller particles. Graviton puller particles are a complete and utter fantasy which no one has observed or experienced.

This is why an upwardly moving earth is the stronger opponent. There is empirical, observable evidence behind it.

Gravitons are irrelevant in you observation. You are using lack of evidence for gravitons as evidence that the earth it accelerating upwards.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: John Davis on June 07, 2011, 03:19:48 PM
Zeteticism is observation and nothing else (as sillyrob, etc have already said):

1. The moment you start reasoning it is no-longer zeteticism, because you are formulating a hypothosis.
2. The moment you start experimenting it is no-longer zeteticism, because you are testing a hypothosis.
Incorrect, you can gather data.  This takes the place of experimentation and removes any bias introduced by the sm.

Quote
Tom has reasoned (hypothesised) that the earth is accelerating upwards.  I think this is wrong because:

1. Acceleration is a vector quantity - It could be Tom or the earth doing the accelerating.
2. He has used the fact that graviton have not been observed in his reasoning.  This is irrelevant.
2. Hypothetically, gravity may be discovered by Tom later on. There are other observable forces of attraction that cannot be easily explained (electromagnetism), so we cannot rule out another.
Perhaps, but all we can say is that either Tom accelerates downwards for an unknown reason or that the Earth accelerates upwards.  In the end, that is where zeteticism ends until one spends the proper time to gather more evidence.  There is the supposed fact that this phenomenae occurs.  A zeteticist should not worry about which is true nor should he go around inventing wild explanations on why this is true no more than a greek shepherd should speculate that a god's chariot carries the sun across the heavens.  It may, to the fanciful youth, be more enjoyable and fun to imagine the universe is bending around itself to cause this to happen or that some invisible undetectable particles are the cause, but its not a theory that can said to have any validation in regards to truth beyond its appeal to curiosity.  Once we can gather data on these supposedly undetectable particles or gather it on whatever causes the universe to bend around itself - then we can sit back and say with a small amount of certainty that we are moving in the correct direction.  To do otherwise would be to simply inflate ones own ego and quench the thirst man has to imagine explanations out of nowhere.  The road science takes leads the unwary scientist inevitably two steps forward and three back.

However, that said, by viewing this data on the whole we see the Earth cannot be round.  That was the point of Rowbothams experiments, not to formulate a theory on Earth.  He was already content in his biblical explanation.

Many so called "scientists" are actually in reality zeteticists.  I have mentioned a few in the past but it seems the globularist community here wants to dismiss them out of hand simply because they fail to recognize the method they are following.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Lord Wilmore on June 07, 2011, 03:40:40 PM
I don't have time to respond in detail right now, but John has basically said everything that needs to be said. Ultimately, Zetetics prefer to have the right answer to some questions rather than some answer to every question.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on June 07, 2011, 04:06:25 PM
Quote
Tom is aware, of course, that the Earth does not "rise up" at the same rate over the entire planet.

The variations of g at different locations is so slight that the difference is well within experimental error. Accelerometers aren't exactly known to be perfectly accurate.

Lab grade gravimeters are more than sensitive enough and accurate enough to show beyond any doubt that your statements are false.

Quote from: markjo
Unfortunately this completely ignores the equivalence principle that clearly states that this experiment is inconclusive.

It's not ignoring it at all. The equivalence principal might say that imaginary graviton puller particles are indistinguishable from an upwardly rising earth. But of those two options only an upwardly rising earth is directly observable. When I step off the edge of a chair I can see, directly, that the earth rises upwards. No one can observe graviton puller particles. Graviton puller particles are a complete and utter fantasy which no one has observed or experienced.

This is why an upwardly moving earth is the stronger opponent. There is empirical, observable evidence behind it.

Tom, if the mechanism behind the UA is irrelevant, then so is the mechanism behind gravity.  Whether the earth appears to rise to meet you or you appear fall to meet the earth depends solely on your frame of reference.  This is the heart of the equivalence principle.  You don't see warped space-time and you don't see some mysterious dark energy pushing the earth up to meet you, so both theories are equally likely from what little data you can observe.

BTW, warped spacetime also explains the orbit of Mercury quite nicely.  How does the UA explain the same phenomenon?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: trig on June 07, 2011, 05:10:54 PM
The variations of g at different locations is so slight that the difference is well within experimental error. Accelerometers aren't exactly known to be perfectly accurate.
Once again, Tom Bishop is showing he is incapable of understanding such a simple scientific concept as experimental error.

The gravitational pull is routinely measured to within 10 micro Gal, where the average gravitational pull on Earth is about 980 Gal. In other words, it is routinely measured to 0.1x10-6 m/s/s, while the difference between Oslo and Mexico City is about 40000x10-6 m/s/s. That is a mighty small experimental error compared to the measurement you are making.

If you do not believe in me, look at http://microglacoste.com/absolutemeters.php (http://microglacoste.com/absolutemeters.php)

The variations of g are not within experimental error. They are orders of magnitude larger than the experimental error. You can even doubt the experimental error by a factor of 100 and still get to the inescapable conclusion that the variations of g are a known fact.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 07, 2011, 09:16:06 PM
What happens if my observations go against what the society says their observations are? Who is to say which observation is the correct one?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Around And About on June 08, 2011, 08:19:42 AM
What I'd like to know is, what does Tommy B observe when somebody else walks off a chair? ???
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 08, 2011, 08:26:47 AM
What I'd like to know is, what does Tommy B observe when somebody else walks off a chair? ???
Is Tommy B his rapper name? Obviously he's going to see the Earth move up at that person, since seeing anything else would go against his beliefs.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 08, 2011, 03:10:03 PM
But tom, myself and others have observed falling when walking out of a chair, so explain that.

When you watch someone else do it it's second hand evidence. When you do it yourself and see the earth rise up to you, it's first hand evidence. A first hand experience is more empirical than second hand evidence.

Quote from: General Disarray
The exact phrase I used was "The Universal Accelerator", as in the force that supposedly accelerates the earth in FET. You may think you have observed its effects, but you have not observed it directly.

We know that something must be moving the earth. We do not know or assume that it's a force.

Quote from: Moon Squirter
Gravitons are irrelevant in you observation. You are using lack of evidence for gravitons as evidence that the earth it accelerating upwards.

Gravitons are very relevant. We have three options for the immediate mechanism for gravity: the earth rising, sub-atomic puller particles (gravitons), and the idea that the fabric of space bends (bendy space).

When I walk off the edge of a chair do I see sub-atomic puller particles? No. I do not see any sub-atomic puller particles.

When I walk off the edge of a chair do I see the fabric of space-time bending? No. I do not see the fabric of space-time bending.

When I walk off the edge of a chair do I see the earth rise up to meet me? Yes. I see the earth rise upwards to meet my feet.

Ergo, an upwardly moving earth is the most empirical explanation.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 08, 2011, 03:12:02 PM
Stop feeding the troll.  No explanation for "Falling off of a chair" is observable.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on June 08, 2011, 03:32:49 PM
Quote from: Moon Squirter
Gravitons are irrelevant in you observation. You are using lack of evidence for gravitons as evidence that the earth it accelerating upwards.

Gravitons are very relevant. We have three options for the immediate mechanism for gravity: the earth rising, sub-atomic puller particles (gravitons), and the idea that the fabric of space bends (bendy space).

When I walk off the edge of a chair do I see sub-atomic puller particles? No. I do not see any sub-atomic puller particles.

When I walk off the edge of a chair do I see the fabric of space-time bending? No. I do not see the fabric of space-time bending.

When I walk off the edge of a chair do I see the earth rise up to meet me? Yes. I see the earth rise upwards to meet my feet.

Ergo, an upwardly moving earth is the most empirical explanation.

Seriously Tom, would you really expect to see gravitons you or the warping of space-time?  ???

When you walk off the edge of a chair do you see anything pushing the earth up to meet you? No. You see the earth rise upwards to meet your feet because you are your own personal frame of reference.  If you can learn to think outside of your own personal frame of reference, then you will be introduced to a whole new world of possibilities.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Harutsedo on June 08, 2011, 03:38:13 PM
ITT: Air does not exist.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 08, 2011, 03:53:11 PM
Seriously Tom, would you really expect to see gravitons you or the warping of space-time?  ???

Yes. Zeteticism is a philosophy of empiricism."It's invisible" and "they're too tiny to see" are ridiculous arguments. If you're going to tell me that something is pulling me towards the earth you're going to have to present empirical evidence for your position.

Of those three options, gravitons, bendy space, and an upwardly moving earth, only one of them has been observed.

Quote
When you walk off the edge of a chair do you see anything pushing the earth up to meet you?

I make no claim for what pushes the earth, only that it is moving.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 08, 2011, 04:27:54 PM
But Tom, when I step off a chair, I see myself falling. Explain that one. I performed a zetetic experiment and came up with a conclusion that differs than you. Why is that?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 08, 2011, 04:29:41 PM
But Tom, when I step off a chair, I see myself falling. Explain that one. I performed a zetetic experiment and came up with a conclusion that differs than you. Why is that?

When you step off a chair you observe the ground rushing upwards to meet your feet.

You don't observe yourself being pulled towards the earth. What's pulling you? Puller particles? Ridiculous.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 08, 2011, 04:49:57 PM
But Tom, when I step off a chair, I see myself falling. Explain that one. I performed a zetetic experiment and came up with a conclusion that differs than you. Why is that?
You don't observe yourself being pulled towards the earth. What's pulling you? Puller particles? Ridiculous.

Irrelevant.  Personal observation for this phenomenon is completely subjective, regardless of how ridiculous it may sound.  Also remember than any hyperbolic idiot can make either theory sound like the more "ridiculous" theory.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Harutsedo on June 08, 2011, 05:04:18 PM
Dang, Tom. The floor must have really hated you when you were little.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 08, 2011, 05:50:24 PM
Irrelevant.  Personal observation for this phenomenon is completely subjective, regardless of how ridiculous it may sound.

It's not subjective. When I step off a chair I don't observe anything pulling me. I observe the earth rising upwards to meet me. That's a direct observation.

It's the RE'ers who are saying that our senses are fooling us and that it's really just something invisible pulling us to the earth. RE'ers are choosing illusion over direct observation.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 08, 2011, 06:02:39 PM
Irrelevant.  Personal observation for this phenomenon is completely subjective, regardless of how ridiculous it may sound.

It's not subjective. When I step off a chair I don't observe anything pulling me. I observe the earth rising upwards to meet me. That's a direct observation.

It's the RE'ers who are saying that our senses are fooling us and that it's really just something invisible pulling us to the earth. RE'ers are choosing illusion over direct observation.

To-mae-to, to-mah-to.  Earth rising to meet us, gravity pulling us toward it.  It's been thoroughly established that both (would) equally replicate the "falling off of a chair" phenomena.

To claim one is true and the other is false solely based on observation is to claim one opinion is wrong when another is correct.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: General Disarray on June 08, 2011, 06:12:10 PM
So you can observe that some acceleration is taking place. You have not observed a thing which is pushing the earth upwards at 9.8 m/s2.

Also the universal accelerator is one thing which observational evidence directly contradicts, as was pointed out here earlier.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 08, 2011, 07:09:04 PM
But Tom, when I step off a chair, I see myself falling. Explain that one. I performed a zetetic experiment and came up with a conclusion that differs than you. Why is that?

When you step off a chair you observe the ground rushing upwards to meet your feet.

You don't observe yourself being pulled towards the earth. What's pulling you? Puller particles? Ridiculous.
What's making the Earth go upwards? Upwards particles?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 08, 2011, 07:17:09 PM
Irrelevant.  Personal observation for this phenomenon is completely subjective, regardless of how ridiculous it may sound.

It's not subjective. When I step off a chair I don't observe anything pulling me. I observe the earth rising upwards to meet me. That's a direct observation.

It's the RE'ers who are saying that our senses are fooling us and that it's really just something invisible pulling us to the earth. RE'ers are choosing illusion over direct observation.
I directly observed myself falling to the ground. You cannot tell me that my observation is somehow less observational than your own. The point I'm trying to make is that your whole claim of stepping off a chair and observing what happens cannot be used as evidence, because we both seem to see different things.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on June 08, 2011, 07:18:36 PM
Seriously Tom, would you really expect to see gravitons you or the warping of space-time?  ???

Yes. Zeteticism is a philosophy of empiricism."It's invisible" and "they're too tiny to see" are ridiculous arguments. If you're going to tell me that something is pulling me towards the earth you're going to have to present empirical evidence for your position.

Of those three options, gravitons, bendy space, and an upwardly moving earth, only one of them has been observed.

Tom, if you can only believe in what you see, then you have a very small world view, indeed.

Quote
When you walk off the edge of a chair do you see anything pushing the earth up to meet you?

I make no claim for what pushes the earth, only that it is moving.

Yet something must push the earth upwards.  Not having a mechanism to push the FE (as well as all of the celestial objects) upwards is just as big a hole in your theory as RET not having observed gravitons or warped space-time.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on June 08, 2011, 10:14:01 PM
Irrelevant.  Personal observation for this phenomenon is completely subjective, regardless of how ridiculous it may sound.

It's not subjective. When I step off a chair I don't observe anything pulling me. I observe the earth rising upwards to meet me. That's a direct observation.

It's the RE'ers who are saying that our senses are fooling us and that it's really just something invisible pulling us to the earth. RE'ers are choosing illusion over direct observation.

Can you see magnetism? No you can't. When a magnet attracts a metal object do you see any sub atomic particles or anything like that? No.
Can you see the effects of it? Yes.

Gravity may be an invisible force.
So is magnetism...

Can you see any force pushing the earth up? No, what about turning the "celestial gears"?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 08, 2011, 11:07:55 PM
Can you see any force pushing the earth up? No, what about turning the "celestial gears"?

No, but you can see the effects of it.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: General Disarray on June 08, 2011, 11:43:47 PM
Can you see any force pushing the earth up? No, what about turning the "celestial gears"?

No, but you can see the effects of it.

And the observed effects are in direct contradiction to the (non-zetetic) theory that something is pushing the entire earth upwards at exactly 1 g.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Moon squirter on June 09, 2011, 12:03:39 AM
Quote from: Moon Squirter
Gravitons are irrelevant in you observation. You are using lack of evidence for gravitons as evidence that the earth it accelerating upwards.

Gravitons are very relevant. We have three options for the immediate mechanism for gravity: the earth rising, sub-atomic puller particles (gravitons), and the idea that the fabric of space bends (bendy space).

When I walk off the edge of a chair do I see sub-atomic puller particles? No. I do not see any sub-atomic puller particles.
..
..
yada yada yada

Tom,

You are using your lack of evidence of gravitons as an argument for universal acceleration. As a practising pseudoscientist, you are using "Argument for ignorance" as logical tool to make your point. 

"I cannot see gravitons*, therefore the earth is accelerating upwards" sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?

 *the actual existence of gravitons is irrelevant, it's your argument that is silly nonsense.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on June 09, 2011, 06:25:35 AM
Can you see any force pushing the earth up? No, what about turning the "celestial gears"?

No, but you can see the effects of it.

You can observe the effects of gravity as well.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: 17 November on June 09, 2011, 06:43:34 AM
So let's go over a list of the aspects of FET for which no verifiable empirical evidence has been presented (or in some cases experimental evidence directly contradicts):

  • The Universal Accelerator
  • Bendy Light
  • "Aetheric Eddification"
  • The conspiracy
  • Luminescent moon/sun life
  • The anti-moon
  • The sub-moon
  • The "greater ice wall" (or whatever contains the air)
  • Celestial gears
  • Whatever causes the celestial bodies to remain above the earth and moving as they do
  • Dinosaurs building boats to cross the oceans

That's just all I could think of off the top of my head, feel free to add to the list. It is entirely fair to accuse these self-proclaimed "zetetics" of hypocrisy when the vast majority of what they believe has no more observational evidence behind it than "it looks flat".

Well put.  I completely agree.

And the observed effects are in direct contradiction to the (non-zetetic) theory that something is pushing the entire earth upwards at exactly 1 g.

You almost sound like an old school flat earther which is more than I can say for the arguments of other professed flat earth believers in this thread.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 09, 2011, 06:56:05 PM
Irrelevant.  Personal observation for this phenomenon is completely subjective, regardless of how ridiculous it may sound.

It's not subjective. When I step off a chair I don't observe anything pulling me. I observe the earth rising upwards to meet me. That's a direct observation.

It's the RE'ers who are saying that our senses are fooling us and that it's really just something invisible pulling us to the earth. RE'ers are choosing illusion over direct observation.

To-mae-to, to-mah-to.  Earth rising to meet us, gravity pulling us toward it.  It's been thoroughly established that both (would) equally replicate the "falling off of a chair" phenomena.

To claim one is true and the other is false solely based on observation is to claim one opinion is wrong when another is correct.

What's wrong with claiming that something is true or false based on observation?

An idea of any merit should have something to back it up. What more could you ask for than direct observation?

In an argument on the existence of ghosts, who has the more powerful argument. The guy mumbling "just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist" or the skeptic who will not believe in ghosts until a ghost has been detected or observed?

Direct observation is the most powerful of evidence. It certainly beats out opposing theories involving invisible space fabrics and sub-atomic puller particles.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on June 09, 2011, 07:03:26 PM
Direct observation is the most powerful of evidence.

This might be true if your senses weren't so limited and easy to fool.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 09, 2011, 07:05:16 PM
So if I release something from my hand, and I observe it fall, how is it that my observation is somehow less credible than your own?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 09, 2011, 07:09:39 PM
So if I release something from my hand, and I observe it fall, how is it that my observation is somehow less credible than your own?

Quote from: Tom Bishop
When you watch someone [or something] else do it it's second hand evidence. When you do it yourself and see the earth rise up to meet you, it's first hand evidence. A first hand experience is more empirical than second hand evidence.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 09, 2011, 07:26:34 PM
So if I release something from my hand, and I observe it fall, how is it that my observation is somehow less credible than your own?

Quote from: Tom Bishop
When you watch someone [or something] else do it it's second hand evidence. When you do it yourself and see the earth rise up to meet you, it's first hand evidence. A first hand experience is more empirical than second hand evidence.
Ok, I've asked why it's less credible when I directly observe myself falling too and you've done nothing about it.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 09, 2011, 07:27:56 PM
ITT: Tom pretends to not understand the definition of the phrase "first-hand evidence".
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 09, 2011, 07:35:17 PM
What's wrong with claiming that something is true or false based on observation?

An idea of any merit should have something to back it up. What more could you ask for than direct observation?

Direct observation is the most powerful of evidence.

(http://www.uic.edu/com/eye/LearningAboutVision/EyeSite/OpticalIllustions/Images/facevase.gif)

I directly observe that the picture contains two black faces.  

Another may observe that it contains a white vase.

Both have directly observed two different yet equally valid things; one is not more correct than the other.  Direct observation would be "the most powerful evidence" if it weren't for that fact that two people can observe two different, yet equally plausible things and draw completely dissimilar conclusions.

And stop with the "It certainly beats out opposing theories involving invisible space fabrics and sub-atomic puller particles." garbage.  As I mentioned earlier, any idiot can use hyperbole and over-exaggeration to  make either argument seem ludicrous.  You don't wanna be just any idiot, do you?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Lord Wilmore on June 09, 2011, 08:35:54 PM
You're all focussing too much on the empirical aspect of the Zetetic Method, to the exclusion of its other elements. Tom's point (as far as I can tell) is that he is not inferring the existence of anything on the basis of supposition or guess-work. Instead, he is making logical inferences on the basis of incontestable empirical data.


Tom observes the Earth accelerating towards him. I believe RE'ers must concede this point, even if they do not wish to concede that the Earth does indeed accelerate towards him. So the question becomes, what can he logically conclude from such an experience (without being ambushed by the garrison at Fort Solipsism)? Well, if the Earth accelerates towards Tom, then it must either be a property of the Earth that it accelerates, or something else must accelerate it. This is all that he concludes. Without further empirical data, I don't see how the conclusion can be challenged, or how further conclusions can be drawn.


The simple fact is that you cannot observe the Earth attracting you to it, or make observations that are outside your frame of reference. To introduce these arguments (as many RE'ers have in this thread) in order to attack arguments as "not zetetic" is ridiculous, as these forms of 'evidence' are not permitted by the Zetetic Method. At heart they are all hypothetical, and therefore antithetical to Zetetic methodology.


So where does that leave the RE'ers, or those FE'ers who believe in 'gravity'? Well, in my view they must present some kind of repeatable experiment that presents direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is not accelerating towards Tom. At that point, he would have to draw some kind of logical conclusion(s) from the new empirical data. Crucially however, these new conclusions would be based upon empirical evidence, not hypotheses or imaginative speculation.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: John Davis on June 09, 2011, 09:32:25 PM
What's wrong with claiming that something is true or false based on observation?

An idea of any merit should have something to back it up. What more could you ask for than direct observation?

Direct observation is the most powerful of evidence.

(http://www.uic.edu/com/eye/LearningAboutVision/EyeSite/OpticalIllustions/Images/facevase.gif)

I directly observe that the picture contains two black faces.  

Another may observe that it contains a white vase.

Both have directly observed two different yet equally valid things; one is not more correct than the other.  Direct observation would be "the most powerful evidence" if it weren't for that fact that two people can observe two different, yet equally plausible things and draw completely dissimilar conclusions.

And stop with the "It certainly beats out opposing theories involving invisible space fabrics and sub-atomic puller particles." garbage.  As I mentioned earlier, any idiot can use hyperbole and over-exaggeration to  make either argument seem ludicrous.  You don't wanna be just any idiot, do you?
Its not a matter of hyperbole.  Both of those are theories that are not based on direct observational evidence.

The image you posted above highlights one of the many flaws with the scientific method.   Two people can observe two different things mutually exclusive things and they both can be true.  Science as a method and an idealogy is still trying to come to terms with this and horribly failing.  
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Around And About on June 09, 2011, 09:49:16 PM
Two people can observer two different things and they both can be true.

How does Zeteticism, which I presume still relies fundamentally on direct personal observation, address this concern?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: John Davis on June 09, 2011, 11:07:40 PM
Two people can observer two different things and they both can be true.

How does Zeteticism, which I presume still relies fundamentally on direct personal observation, address this concern?
Well, I don't really hold it does, but Wilmore believes it does.  From what I understand of his take on zeteticism, since it relies on direct personal observation, each person is right within their own right.  To me, this is not really explicit or implicit in zeteticism and is in the realm of the pluralistic lovin' neozeteticism.  The main concern I have going down this line in zeteticism is that at its heart Rowbotham's work assumes a singular truth - namely a biblical one.  This is clear from his writings both on the zetetic method and on terra.  There is no room for pluralistic views within this framework as everyone is supposedly viewing the same singular 'facts'.  If they contradict, something is wrong with how you are observing the data.

However, to really address this one has to take into account some postmodern concerns as well as pluralistic ones.  This is one of the most important differences in neozeteticism along with the formalization of the 'right to believe's place in zetetic work especially as it relates to what could be called "useful" revelation.  To answer an earlier question, this is also a notable difference between neozet and glob science.

Like I said though, Wilmore , who very well might be right, thinks otherwise and that zeteticism can clearly hold its own in a pluralistic realm without needless defining.   This is a strong and extremely valid point.  

In the end neozeteticism is at its heart zeteticism formalized around its actual use in todays post modern mind coupled with some useful ideas borrowed in from sources varying from classical mainstream science and other notable corollary works like Charles Fort.  All this while still maintaining an epistlemologically superior basis.  
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Moon squirter on June 10, 2011, 12:00:45 AM
In an argument on the existence of ghosts, who has the more powerful argument. The guy mumbling "just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist" or the skeptic who will not believe in ghosts until a ghost has been detected or observed?

Direct observation is the most powerful of evidence. It certainly beats out opposing theories involving invisible space fabrics and sub-atomic puller particles.

Alas, another schoolboy error.  The mumbling guy is logically correct, therefore he has the more powerful argument (however strange it may seem to your conservative mind)

For example, the "skeptic" concludes ghosts do not exist.  He would have to "directly observe" this, checking all areas of the cosmos instantaneously (those pesky ghosts might move around).  That's a bit silly, isn't it?

Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: General Disarray on June 10, 2011, 12:28:52 AM
You're all focussing too much on the empirical aspect of the Zetetic Method, to the exclusion of its other elements. Tom's point (as far as I can tell) is that he is not inferring the existence of anything on the basis of supposition or guess-work. Instead, he is making logical inferences on the basis of incontestable empirical data.


Tom observes the Earth accelerating towards him. I believe RE'ers must concede this point, even if they do not wish to concede that the Earth does indeed accelerate towards him. So the question becomes, what can he logically conclude from such an experience (without being ambushed by the garrison at Fort Solipsism)? Well, if the Earth accelerates towards Tom, then it must either be a property of the Earth that it accelerates, or something else must accelerate it. This is all that he concludes. Without further empirical data, I don't see how the conclusion can be challenged, or how further conclusions can be drawn.


The simple fact is that you cannot observe the Earth attracting you to it, or make observations that are outside your frame of reference. To introduce these arguments (as many RE'ers have in this thread) in order to attack arguments as "not zetetic" is ridiculous, as these forms of 'evidence' are not permitted by the Zetetic Method. At heart they are all hypothetical, and therefore antithetical to Zetetic methodology.


So where does that leave the RE'ers, or those FE'ers who believe in 'gravity'? Well, in my view they must present some kind of repeatable experiment that presents direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is not accelerating towards Tom. At that point, he would have to draw some kind of logical conclusion(s) from the new empirical data. Crucially however, these new conclusions would be based upon empirical evidence, not hypotheses or imaginative speculation.

Tom's (and apparently your) inability to understand the equivalence principle and outright rejection of all evidence which proves his theory wrong are of no concern to me.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Moon squirter on June 10, 2011, 02:12:09 AM
So where does that leave the RE'ers, or those FE'ers who believe in 'gravity'? Well, in my view they must present some kind of repeatable experiment that presents direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is not accelerating towards Tom. At that point, he would have to draw some kind of logical conclusion(s) from the new empirical data. Crucially however, these new conclusions would be based upon empirical evidence, not hypotheses or imaginative speculation.

We have directly observed that the earth is curved (ships/landmasses, the heavens, curvature at high altitude).  Therefore the earth cannot be accelerating upwards by the nature of its shape.

EDIT: At this point I will be told (for some inexplicable reason) to read EnaG.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 10, 2011, 02:49:01 AM
Unfortunately, Wilmore, I feel that conclusions based on empirical evidence are bunk because "empirical evidence" depends so much on frame of reference, etc.  I think the fact that TB observes the Earth accelerating to meet him and RE'ers observing themselves being pulled by gravity (both of which describe and "explain" the same phenomenon) shows that empirical evidence is weak and only valid in the eye of the beholder.  It's useless to anyone but the observer.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: 17 November on June 10, 2011, 04:11:34 AM
Tom observes the Earth accelerating towards him. I believe RE'ers must concede this point

No one should concede this point because it is false. 

When he steps down from a chair to the ground beneath, he does not observe the Earth move towards him in any way whatsoever.  He moves towards the Earth, and that is what is observed by he or anyone else who sees him step down.  To insist that he does observe the Earth rise is to understand less than what even any small child naturally understands.  It is foolishness and not philosophy.


Show me any principle that says otherwise (even if it is allegedly zetetic), and I will show you a lie reguardless of what it calls itself.

in my view they must present some kind of repeatable experiment that presents direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is not accelerating towards Tom.

We each have a free will and cannot force each other to believe anything, but we can adopt attitudes and ideologies that buttress false ideas enough to convince us we are right when we are actually not.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on June 10, 2011, 06:30:15 AM
Tom observes the Earth accelerating towards him. I believe RE'ers must concede this point, even if they do not wish to concede that the Earth does indeed accelerate towards him.

From Tom's personal frame of reference, this is true.  However, you and Tom must also concede the fact that from the frame of reference of the earth, Tom is accelerating towards the earth.  From another frame of reference, it could appear that both Tom and the earth are accelerating towards each other.  This simple fact makes the whole experiment inconclusive so I really don't know why Tom keeps insisting that it proves anything (actually, I do, but that's another rant).
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 10, 2011, 06:39:33 AM
What I'm gathering is that my direct observation of falling toward Earth isn't as good as Tom's because I don't believe the Earth is flat. Noted.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Lord Wilmore on June 10, 2011, 06:44:04 AM
Well, I don't really hold it does, but Wilmore believes it does.  From what I understand of his take on zeteticism, since it relies on direct personal observation, each person is right within their own right.  To me, this is not really explicit or implicit in zeteticism and is in the realm of the pluralistic lovin' neozeteticism.  The main concern I have going down this line in zeteticism is that at its heart Rowbotham's work assumes a singular truth - namely a biblical one.  This is clear from his writings both on the zetetic method and on terra.  There is no room for pluralistic views within this framework as everyone is supposedly viewing the same singular 'facts'.  If they contradict, something is wrong with how you are observing the data.

However, to really address this one has to take into account some postmodern concerns as well as pluralistic ones.  This is one of the most important differences in neozeteticism along with the formalization of the 'right to believe's place in zetetic work especially as it relates to what could be called "useful" revelation.  To answer an earlier question, this is also a notable difference between neozet and glob science.

Like I said though, Wilmore , who very well might be right, thinks otherwise and that zeteticism can clearly hold its own in a pluralistic realm without needless defining.   This is a strong and extremely valid point.  

In the end neozeteticism is at its heart zeteticism formalized around its actual use in todays post modern mind coupled with some useful ideas borrowed in from sources varying from classical mainstream science and other notable corollary works like Charles Fort.  All this while still maintaining an epistlemologically superior basis.  


John's pretty much right here, however I do believe Zeteticism still aims at an objective truth. However, for philosophical reasons, it makes the search for objective truth subject orientated. If people have conflicting experiences, then they must use logic to reconcile those experiences. The point is, Zeteticism never dismisses experiential evidence as 'wrong', 'illusory', or in any other pejorative fashion. Those experiences need to be reconciled or understood through logic, but they are all recognised as part of the objective truth.


Take the image posted above (though it's not a great example, as it doesn't really challenge Zeteticism). Person A sees a white vase. Person B sees two black faces. Person A says to Person B, "It's a picture of a white vase", and B responds "I thought it was a picture of two black faces". They can then return to the picture, and both can confirm that both forms are present within the image. Zeteticism will not invalidate either experience, but rather recognises that both form part of a larger truth. The methodolgy does not abitrarily validate some experiences over others.


That said, I do think there is scope for a more radical reformalisation of the Zetetic Method. However, until I an explicit rendering of Neozeteticism, it's hard for me to make any serious comments.


Tom observes the Earth accelerating towards him. I believe RE'ers must concede this point, even if they do not wish to concede that the Earth does indeed accelerate towards him.

From Tom's personal frame of reference, this is true.  However, you and Tom must also concede the fact that from the frame of reference of the earth, Tom is accelerating towards the earth.  From another frame of reference, it could appear that both Tom and the earth are accelerating towards each other.  This simple fact makes the whole experiment inconclusive so I really don't know why Tom keeps insisting that it proves anything (actually, I do, but that's another rant).


Has anyone ever observed anything from the frame of reference of the Earth? Don't you see that's impossible?


I don't have time to reply to everyone right now, as I'm heading off to Dublin to meet with a philosopher, but I promise to address your points come Monday/Tuesday.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on June 10, 2011, 07:05:55 AM
Has anyone ever observed anything from the frame of reference of the Earth? Don't you see that's impossible?

That's just silly.  Lie down on the floor.  Presto!  You are observing from the earth's frame of reference.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Mrs. Peach on June 10, 2011, 08:52:23 AM
Has anyone ever observed anything from the frame of reference of the Earth? Don't you see that's impossible?

That's just silly.  Lie down on the floor.  Presto!  You are observing from the earth's frame of reference.

And that's just really silly.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2011, 09:11:03 AM
So if I release something from my hand, and I observe it fall, how is it that my observation is somehow less credible than your own?

Quote from: Tom Bishop
When you watch someone [or something] else do it it's second hand evidence. When you do it yourself and see the earth rise up to meet you, it's first hand evidence. A first hand experience is more empirical than second hand evidence.
Ok, I've asked why it's less credible when I directly observe myself falling too and you've done nothing about it.

It's less credible because when you step off a chair you don't observe yourself being pulled to the ground. You don't see that at all. That's not what you see. You don't see anything pulling you, or that you are being pulled. Sure, you can imagine that some invisible undetectable phenomena is pulling you to the ground (ie. gravitons, bendy space), but that's an absurd notion.

When you step off a chair and become inert you see that the ground rushes upwards to meet you. This is a direct observation. There is no direct observation suggesting that you are being pulled.

Zeteticism is against absurd notions and hypothetical conjecture. Empirically, when you step off the edge of a chair you see the earth rising upwards. Nothing pulling you is observed.

I'm not saying anything anything about the equivalence principal being wrong.

I'm not saying anything about the impossibility of something pulling you.

I am pointing out that we have something observed vs. something not observed. Empirical evidence vs. absurd hypothesis. Visible vs. invisible.

Why should I believe in the imagined when I have reality staring me right in the face?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 10, 2011, 09:34:02 AM
It's less credible because when you step off a chair you don't observe yourself being pulled to the ground. You don't see that at all. That's not what you see. You don't see anything pulling you, or that you are being pulled. Sure, you can imagine that some invisible undetectable phenomena is pulling you to the ground (ie. gravitons, bendy space), but that's an absurd notion.

When you step off a chair and become inert you see that the ground rushes upwards to meet you. This is a direct observation. There is no direct observation suggesting that you are being pulled.

Zeteticism is against absurd notions and hypothetical conjecture. Empirically, when you step off the edge of a chair you see the earth rising upwards. Nothing pulling you is observed.

I'm not saying anything anything about the equivalence principal being wrong.

I'm not saying anything about the impossibility of something pulling you.

I am pointing out that we have something observed vs. something not observed. Empirical evidence vs. absurd hypothesis. Visible vs. invisible.

How do know what others do and don't observe? ???

Sure, to you, "gravitons/bendy space" may seem absurd.  Yet to us, who observe ourselves being pulled toward the Earth, such a theory is most certainly not absurd; what we find absurd is your wild claim that the Earth is being accelerated endlessly through space by an unknown force.  Yet again I've shown that either theory can be presented as absurd.

No, you.  Not "we".
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 10, 2011, 09:34:40 AM
It's pretty amazing that you know what I see. I saw myself falling to the ground. I didn't see anything raise up at me. You are being ridiculous in stating that I somehow didn't properly see what I saw. I fell to the ground. The Earth didn't come up at me, I'm not implying that I saw "invisible particles pull me", I fell. That's it.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on June 10, 2011, 10:05:53 AM
Has anyone ever observed anything from the frame of reference of the Earth? Don't you see that's impossible?

That's just silly.  Lie down on the floor.  Presto!  You are observing from the earth's frame of reference.

And that's just really silly.

As long as you are in direct, physical contact with the earth, you are in the same frame of reference as the earth.  Nothing at all silly about that.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Around And About on June 10, 2011, 10:16:01 AM
Thomas certainly loves to invoke reductiones ad ridiculum, ironically enough.  ::)
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Mrs. Peach on June 12, 2011, 06:27:47 AM
Has anyone ever observed anything from the frame of reference of the Earth? Don't you see that's impossible?

That's just silly.  Lie down on the floor.  Presto!  You are observing from the earth's frame of reference.

And that's just really silly.

As long as you are in direct, physical contact with the earth, you are in the same frame of reference as the earth.  Nothing at all silly about that.

And we have to lie down on the floor because...?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on June 12, 2011, 06:38:18 AM
Has anyone ever observed anything from the frame of reference of the Earth? Don't you see that's impossible?

That's just silly.  Lie down on the floor.  Presto!  You are observing from the earth's frame of reference.

And that's just really silly.

As long as you are in direct, physical contact with the earth, you are in the same frame of reference as the earth.  Nothing at all silly about that.

And we have to lie down on the floor because...?

To make it easier to observe the object falling to meet you.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Mrs. Peach on June 12, 2011, 06:42:35 AM
Like I said, that's siwwy.  ;D
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 12, 2011, 10:53:25 AM
To be fair, it's not as silly as Tom's argument.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: parsec on June 12, 2011, 01:10:05 PM
The Universal Accelerator is Zetetic.

When I get up on a chair and walk off the edge I can see that the earth rises up towards me. I can directly observe that the earth is moving upwards. This is an empirical observation.
But, this is not what the Universal Accelerator is:
Quote
Q: "What about gravity?"

A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 12, 2011, 04:35:50 PM
The Universal Accelerator is Zetetic.

When I get up on a chair and walk off the edge I can see that the earth rises up towards me. I can directly observe that the earth is moving upwards. This is an empirical observation.
But, this is not what the Universal Accelerator is:
Quote
Q: "What about gravity?"

A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.
Dark energy has been proven? Huzzah!
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2011, 08:31:08 AM
It's less credible because when you step off a chair you don't observe yourself being pulled to the ground. You don't see that at all. That's not what you see. You don't see anything pulling you, or that you are being pulled.[/color] Sure, you can imagine that some invisible undetectable phenomena is pulling you to the ground (ie. gravitons, bendy space), but that's an absurd notion.

When you step off a chair and become inert you see that the ground rushes upwards to meet you. This is a direct observation. There is no direct observation suggesting that you are being pulled.

Zeteticism is against absurd notions and hypothetical conjecture. Empirically, when you step off the edge of a chair you see the earth rising upwards. Nothing pulling you is observed.

I'm not saying anything anything about the equivalence principal being wrong.

I'm not saying anything about the impossibility of something pulling you.

I am pointing out that we have something observed vs. something not observed. Empirical evidence vs. absurd hypothesis. Visible vs. invisible.

How do know what others do and don't observe? ???

Sure, to you, "gravitons/bendy space" may seem absurd.  Yet to us, who observe ourselves being pulled toward the Earth, such a theory is most certainly not absurd; what we find absurd is your wild claim that the Earth is being accelerated endlessly through space by an unknown force.  Yet again I've shown that either theory can be presented as absurd.

No, you.  Not "we".

It's absurd because you claim to be observing the invisible. You can't see anything pulling you or that you are being pulled. You can, however, see the earth rise upwards towards you when you step off the edge of a chair. Why should we imagine invisible, undetectable phenomena when we have something visual and observable?

Which is more empirical, something we can observe, or something which we cannot?

Quote from: sillyrob
It's pretty amazing that you know what I see. I saw myself falling to the ground. I didn't see anything raise up at me. You are being ridiculous in stating that I somehow didn't properly see what I saw. I fell to the ground. The Earth didn't come up at me, I'm not implying that I saw "invisible particles pull me", I fell. That's it.

How do you know that something is pulling you if you can't see it?

The excuse "just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist" is a lame excuse that some mumbling shut-in would use to argue for the existence of ghosts.

I can see the earth rise upwards towards me. That's how I know that the earth is rising upwards. I make no speculation about what is pushing it, only affirming its visual movement.

When you step off a chair there is absolutely nothing suggesting that you are being pulled or that something is pulling you. There is nothing to compel one to believe in the invisible and phenomenal.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 13, 2011, 08:35:51 AM
When you step off a chair there is absolutely nothing suggesting that you are being pulled or that something is pulling you. There is nothing to compel one to believe in the invisible and phenomenal.
Except the fact that I saw myself fall to the Earth. The other day I dropped my window AC unit, and I watched it fall to Earth. It would be stupid to think that it stayed there while the Earth came up at it. I watched it go from my window to the ground. Sounds like it fell to Earth to me. There is absolutely nothing suggesting that the Earth is being pushed up at you. There is nothing to compel one to believe in the invisible and phenomenal. And don't come at me with, "That's not first hand experience," because I was there and it happened.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: General Disarray on June 13, 2011, 08:38:41 AM
I make no speculation about what is pushing it, only affirming its visual movement.

Really? From the link in your sig:

Quote
Universal Acceleration
In the Universal Acceleration model, all the celestial bodies including the earth are being accelerated in one uniform direction at roughly 9.81 m/s^2. The proposed method of propulsion is Dark Energy?.

There's an awful lot of speculation in there besides that. On that same page:

Quote
Nexus Rings
The elliptical orbits observed by Astrophysicists on earth are caused by planets moving along transparent, magnetic nexus rings. All significant celestial objects move along individual nexus rings. In addition, smaller objects such as asteroids may be slightly influenced by the pull of nexus rings. Nexus rings exert a small force on each other, but because of the vast amount of nexus rings in the universe, the net forces on each nexus ring are negligible.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2011, 08:40:44 AM
When you step off a chair there is absolutely nothing suggesting that you are being pulled or that something is pulling you. There is nothing to compel one to believe in the invisible and phenomenal.
Except the fact that I saw myself fall to the Earth. The other day I dropped my window AC unit, and I watched it fall to Earth. It would be stupid to think that it stayed there while the Earth came up at it. I watched it go from my window to the ground. Sounds like it fell to Earth to me. There is absolutely nothing suggesting that the Earth is being pushed up at you. There is nothing to compel one to believe in the invisible and phenomenal. And don't come at me with, "That's not first hand experience," because I was there and it happened.

Did you see the AC unit being pulled?

No. You did not. There was nothing you could see pulling the device. You cannot say "yes, I saw something invisible pulling the device." You cannot see invisible speculations. There is nothing suggesting that the device is being pulled.

During the time of the incident did you feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet at 1 g? If so, then it seems that there is 100% more evidence suggesting that the earth is moving upwards than there is for invisible speculations.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2011, 08:44:03 AM
I make no speculation about what is pushing it, only affirming its visual movement.

Really? From the link in your sig:

Quote
Universal Acceleration
In the Universal Acceleration model, all the celestial bodies including the earth are being accelerated in one uniform direction at roughly 9.81 m/s^2. The proposed method of propulsion is Dark Energy?.

There's an awful lot of speculation in there besides that. On that same page:

Quote
Nexus Rings
The elliptical orbits observed by Astrophysicists on earth are caused by planets moving along transparent, magnetic nexus rings. All significant celestial objects move along individual nexus rings. In addition, smaller objects such as asteroids may be slightly influenced by the pull of nexus rings. Nexus rings exert a small force on each other, but because of the vast amount of nexus rings in the universe, the net forces on each nexus ring are negligible.

I did not write that. Those are not Zetetic thoughts.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: General Disarray on June 13, 2011, 08:56:55 AM
Those are not Zetetic thoughts.

I'm glad we agree that the universal accelerator is not zetetic.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2011, 09:10:20 AM
Those are not Zetetic thoughts.

I'm glad we agree that the universal accelerator is not zetetic.

The idea that something is moving the earth upwards, is Zetetic. One may call it the Earth Accelerator or the Universal Accelerator if they wish. We can affirm the visual upwards movement of the earth, but we cannot speculate as to what it is or the mechanism behind it.

Zetetics are diametrically opposed to speculation and hypothesis. Anyone expressing a flim flam speculation on invisible undiscovered phenomena is not expressing a Zetetic thought.

"Dark Energy" does not have empirical evidence behind it. Thus it must be discarded into disrepute.

"Nexus Rings" do not have empirical evidence behind it. Thus it must be discarded into disrepute

"Dark Matter" does not have empirical evidence behind it. Thus it must be discarded into disrepute.

"Gravitons" do not have empirical evidence behind it. Thus it must be discarded into disrepute.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: General Disarray on June 13, 2011, 09:21:01 AM
Same goes for the list in the OP.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Harutsedo on June 13, 2011, 09:31:08 AM
Is it just me, or is Tom being really hypocritical right now?
He claims that the Earth is being pushed, because he can see it.
We claim that the objects are being pulled, because we can see it being pulled. Yet he thinks we're in the wrong...
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2011, 09:33:51 AM
Same goes for the list in the OP.

Agreed. Unfortunately some of our members have not read Chapter 1 of Earth Not a Globe (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm).

Quote from: Harutsedo
Is it just me, or is Tom being really hypocritical right now?
He claims that the Earth is being pushed, because he can see it.
We claim that the objects are being pulled, because we can see it being pulled. Yet he thinks we're in the wrong...

You can't see the objects being pulled. You don't see anything pulling the objects.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Harutsedo on June 13, 2011, 09:35:31 AM
You can't see the objects being pulled. You don't see anything pulling the objects.

You can't see the Earth is being pushed. You don't see anything pushing the Earth.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 13, 2011, 09:37:28 AM
ITT:  Tom knows what you see, think, feel, and observe.

Give it up, Tom.  I see a ball being pulled toward the Earth; you see the Earth rising to meet it.  Both observations are equally valid (despite your hyperbolic rants) and either may or may not be true. 

You claim you're abiding by the equivalence principle, but you're not.

...and if you're just trolling, I applaud you.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 13, 2011, 09:38:04 AM
You can't see the objects being pulled. You don't see anything pulling the objects.

Just like you can't see anything pushing objects (i.e. the Earth)?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: General Disarray on June 13, 2011, 09:45:50 AM
Agreed. Unfortunately some of our members have not read Chapter 1 of Earth Not a Globe (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm).

Tell that to your esteemed colleague James, he is perhaps the most notorious purveyor of theories and hypotheses on this site.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Around And About on June 13, 2011, 10:24:13 AM
Either Einstein is rolling in his grave or the entire planet is rotating around his corpse.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 13, 2011, 11:41:52 AM
Either Einstein is rolling in his grave or the entire planet is rotating around his corpse.

inb4Einstein was wrong about everything
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on June 13, 2011, 12:06:55 PM
It's absurd because you claim to be observing the invisible.

No, Tom.  We are claiming to observe the effects of the invisible.  There is a significant difference.

"Dark Energy" does not have empirical evidence behind it. Thus it must be discarded into disrepute.

Isn't dark energy the mechanism for the UA?  ???
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2011, 02:14:20 PM
ITT:  Tom knows what you see, think, feel, and observe.

Give it up, Tom.  I see a ball being pulled toward the Earth; you see the Earth rising to meet it.  Both observations are equally valid (despite your hyperbolic rants) and either may or may not be true. 

You claim you're abiding by the equivalence principle, but you're not.

...and if you're just trolling, I applaud you.

The arguments you people are giving here is that both possibilities are equally valid. This is not true. Something invisible is not as equally valid as something visible.

I can SEE the earth moving upwards. I cannot SEE anything pulling anything.

The argument "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist" is a lame argument that a mumbling shut-in would use to argue in favor of the ghosts or astrology. This is a weak argument. As empiricists we must discount it on grounds of parsimony.

Quote from: Markjo
No, Tom.  We are claiming to observe the effects of the invisible.  There is a significant difference.

A falsis principiis proficisci.

Quote from: Markjo
Isn't dark energy the mechanism for the UA?

Anyone who says that a mysterious, unobserved, and undiscovered phenomenon is the mechanism for the UA is not expressing a Zetetic thought.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: General Disarray on June 13, 2011, 02:19:35 PM
I like how you keep ignoring the fact that the entire earth does not accelerate at the same rate, therefore eliminating the possibility of the FE concept of Universal Acceleration.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Harutsedo on June 13, 2011, 02:59:23 PM
I can SEE the earth moving upwards. I cannot SEE anything pulling anything.

I can see objects falling. You see the Earth moving up. I call it gravitation, you call it UA. Both are zetetic. I don't get what you don't understand about that.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 13, 2011, 03:08:14 PM
I can SEE the earth moving upwards. I cannot SEE anything pulling anything.

I don't understand -- you can see objects moving "upwards", but not "downwards"?  Is your vision limited to objects travelling in only one direction? ???
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2011, 05:26:38 PM
I can SEE the earth moving upwards. I cannot SEE anything pulling anything.

I can see objects falling. You see the Earth moving up. I call it gravitation, you call it UA. Both are zetetic. I don't get what you don't understand about that.

One explanation is more empirical than the other. One explanation is visible and the other requires invisible speculations.

Say that I am standing in the middle of the street and a car hits me. I see the car run into me. I do not see anything pulling me towards the car. The most empirical explanation is that the car ran into me.

Say that I am standing on a chair. I walk off the edge and become inert. I see the earth run into me. I do not see anything pulling me towards the earth. The most empirical explanation is that the earth ran into me.

Say that I am holding out a bag of marbles. I feel the earth pressing up against my feet at 1g. I let go of the bag of marbles. I do not see anything pulling them towards the earth. The most empirical explanation is that the earth went upwards to meet them.

Why should I believe in the invisible when I have the visible as an alternative explanation?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 13, 2011, 05:48:57 PM
You shouldn't blindly (no pun intended) accept whatever you see.  There are countless examples of phenomena that are much more complex/different than what the eye would let you know.

See: optical illusions.

Accepting what your eye wants you to think is the "simplest explanation" for a phenomenon is both ignorant and often incorrect.


...and once again, despite what you may think, I observe myself being pulled toward the Earth.  The fact that you try to refute that is hysterical and extremely stupid.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Harutsedo on June 13, 2011, 06:07:26 PM
One explanation is more empirical than the other. One explanation is visible and the other requires invisible speculations.

Say that I am standing in the middle of the street and a car hits me. I see the car run into me. I do not see anything pulling me towards the car. The most empirical explanation is that the car ran into me.

Say that I am standing on a chair. I walk off the edge and become inert. I see the earth run into me. I do not see anything pulling me towards the earth. The most empirical explanation is that the earth ran into me.

Say that I am holding out a bag of marbles. I feel the earth pressing up against my feet at 1g. I let go of the bag of marbles. I do not see anything pulling them towards the earth. The most empirical explanation is that the earth went upwards to meet them.

Why should I believe in the invisible when I have the visible as an alternative explanation?

Ok, I get it. Gravitation requires something invisible, while UA may or not be invisible. Tell me something, then. Why is it okay for you to hypothesize an otherwise visible force under the Earth which you can not see, but not for me to hypothesize there is an invisible force that we have demonstrated to exist?

ITT: Air does not exist.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Around And About on June 13, 2011, 06:08:24 PM
One explanation is more empirical than the other. One explanation is visible and the other requires invisible speculations.

Say that I am standing in the middle of the street and the sun sets below the horizon. I see the sun set below the horizon. I do not see anything making the sun disappear. The most empirical explanation is that the sun set below the horizon.

Why should I believe in the invisible, like celestial gears or an anti-moon or bendy light or whatever else when I have the visible as an alternative explanation?

You don't say! That's a good point, Mr. B.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Harutsedo on June 13, 2011, 06:09:49 PM
Ha.

Tom is about to admit he thinks the Earth is round. He just doesn't know it yet.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on June 13, 2011, 06:30:48 PM
Quote from: Markjo
Isn't dark energy the mechanism for the UA?

Anyone who says that a mysterious and undiscovered phenomenon is the mechanism for the UA is not expressing a Zetetic thought.

I'm so glad that you feel that way, Tom.
Quote
What is pushing the Earth ever upwards?

The mechanism is presently unknown, but a placeholder title of "Dark Energy" has been given to the mechanism.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 13, 2011, 07:10:07 PM
I can SEE the earth moving upwards. I cannot SEE anything pulling anything.

I can see objects falling. You see the Earth moving up. I call it gravitation, you call it UA. Both are zetetic. I don't get what you don't understand about that.

One explanation is more empirical than the other. One explanation is visible and the other requires invisible speculations.

Say that I am standing in the middle of the street and a car hits me. I see the car run into me. I do not see anything pulling me towards the car. The most empirical explanation is that the car ran into me.

Say that I am standing on a chair. I walk off the edge and become inert. I see the earth run into me. I do not see anything pulling me towards the earth. The most empirical explanation is that the earth ran into me.

Say that I am holding out a bag of marbles. I feel the earth pressing up against my feet at 1g. I let go of the bag of marbles. I do not see anything pulling them towards the earth. The most empirical explanation is that the earth went upwards to meet them.

Why should I believe in the invisible when I have the visible as an alternative explanation?
Your car explanation is stupid and you are dumb for using it. Anyone but Stevie Wonder can see that a car is moving. However, you CANNOT see that the Earth is moving upwards. In fact, the ground looks quite stationary to me, and it's kind of absurd to tell me that it is moving. In fact, I've never even felt the Earth pushing up on me. I have, however, felt a pull on an object I was holding.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on June 13, 2011, 07:37:41 PM
Why should I believe in the invisible when I have the visible as an alternative explanation?

Tom, aren't you tired of beating this horse yet?  It's dead.  The Equivalence Principle killed it a long time ago.  Just let it be.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2011, 08:46:12 PM
You shouldn't blindly (no pun intended) accept whatever you see.  There are countless examples of phenomena that are much more complex/different than what the eye would let you know.

See: optical illusions.

Accepting what your eye wants you to think is the "simplest explanation" for a phenomenon is both ignorant and often incorrect.

...and once again, despite what you may think, I observe myself being pulled toward the Earth.  The fact that you try to refute that is hysterical and extremely stupid.

That's the lame "Just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist" argument again.

Ok, I get it. Gravitation requires something invisible, while UA may or not be invisible. Tell me something, then. Why is it okay for you to hypothesize an otherwise visible force under the Earth which you can not see, but not for me to hypothesize there is an invisible force that we have demonstrated to exist?

I don't hypothesize an invisible force. I've said several times now that I do not speculate what may be moving the earth. But this does not negate the fact that I SEE the earth moving upwards when I step off a chair.

And where did you demonstrate the existence of gravity?

ITT: Air does not exist.

I've seen air. I can see it build up in the distance. I can see it on a foggy day. I can feel it fill my lungs when I breathe, and I can feel it blow against my face at the beach. There is plenty of empirical evidence for the existence of air.

There is ZERO evidence for the existence of graviton puller particles.

Quote from: Around and About
Say that I am standing in the middle of the street and the sun sets below the horizon. I see the sun set below the horizon. I do not see anything making the sun disappear. The most empirical explanation is that the sun set below the horizon.

Why should I believe in the invisible, like celestial gears or an anti-moon or bendy light or whatever else when I have the visible as an alternative explanation?

I've never seen the sun set below the horizon. When the sun sets it goes into the horizon. No one sees the sun go below it. The idea that the sun is below the horizon is an unsupported speculation.

I'm so glad that you feel that way, Tom.
Quote
What is pushing the Earth ever upwards?

The mechanism is presently unknown, but a placeholder title of "Dark Energy" has been given to the mechanism.

Notice how in that three year old thread I preface that the mechanism is unknown and that Dark Energy is a placeholder title. With my particular usage of the phrase in that thread I make no speculation on what the mechanism is. I make no claims of sub-atomic particles. I make no claims of Newtonian forces.  I do not use my imagination, as a Round Earther would, and imbue Dark Energy with special unobserved, undiscovered, or mysterious properties.

In that thread I am using Dark Energy as a placeholder title for an oft future mechanism and no more. While I affirm the upwards movement of the earth, I make no speculation on the driving mechanism behind it.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Harutsedo on June 13, 2011, 08:58:08 PM
I don't hypothesize an invisible force. I've said several times now that I do not speculate what may be moving the earth.

And where did you demonstrate the existence of gravity?

That's right. You don't hypothesize an invisible force. You hypothesize a visible force. If it was invisible, it would be at the same as gravity. Since you claim it is not, it must be visible. And yes, it must be a force. (That's how things move) You might claim you are not saying anything about the mechanism behind it, but you are, and it is absurd. A visible force fits well with the elephant and turtle thing, doesn't it?

And quit pretending you don't know that we have evidence there are varying degrees of gravity around that Earth, as GD has mentioned.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2011, 09:22:21 PM
Why should I believe in the invisible when I have the visible as an alternative explanation?

Tom, aren't you tired of beating this horse yet?  It's dead.  The Equivalence Principle killed it a long time ago.  Just let it be.

The equivalence principle has nothing to do with empirical arguments of visible vs. invisible, of emperical observation vs unobserved hypothesis. I am not arguing that an invisible fantasy mechanism cannot possibly pull things to the ground at a necessary rate. I am contrasting the possibilities and arguing on basis of ab absurdio.

We can see the earth is moving upwards to meet us when we step off our chair. This is a direct visual affirmation that the earth is moving upwards. We cannot see anything pulling bodies towards the earth. Your explanation is invisible, undetected, and mysterious.

Quote
That's right. You don't hypothesize an invisible force. You hypothesize a visible force. If it was invisible, it would be at the same as gravity. Since you claim it is not, it must be visible. And yes, it must be a force. (That's how things move) You might claim you are not saying anything about the mechanism behind it, but you are, and it is absurd. A visible force fits well with the elephant and turtle thing, doesn't it?

I haven't said anything about what might be pushing the earth from below. Obviously I've never been beneath the earth, so I could not say what mechanism pushes it.

I can SEE the upwards movement of the earth. This is how I know that it is moving upwards. I cannot SEE anything pulling anything. This is how I know that nothing is being pulled. Why should I believe something beyond human experience, when I have a perfectly good experience of the earth moving upwards?

You want us to neglect the observed and open up to the possibility of the paranormal!
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: General Disarray on June 13, 2011, 09:33:14 PM
I like how you keep ignoring the fact that the entire earth does not accelerate at the same rate, therefore eliminating the possibility of the FE concept of Universal Acceleration.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2011, 09:42:06 PM
I like how you keep ignoring the fact that the entire earth does not accelerate at the same rate, therefore eliminating the possibility of the FE concept of Universal Acceleration.

That was already addressed several pages back.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Harutsedo on June 13, 2011, 09:49:59 PM
Maybe we should break this down.
Tom, do you believe some kind of force is pushing the Earth up? If so, you agree that this force would either be visible or not visible to the naked eye if the Earth were not in the way. Is this correct?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: General Disarray on June 13, 2011, 09:53:18 PM
I like how you keep ignoring the fact that the entire earth does not accelerate at the same rate, therefore eliminating the possibility of the FE concept of Universal Acceleration.

That was already addressed several pages back.

No, you ignored the facts presented that disproved your case. That is different than addressing the point.

Devices exist which can and have measured variations in earth's gravity as small as 6 parts in 109, as detailed here (http://iopscience.iop.org/0026-1394/18/3/006). You were wrong.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2011, 09:57:30 PM
Maybe we should break this down.
Tom, do you believe some kind of force is pushing the Earth up? If so, you agree that this force is either visible or not visible. Is this correct?

I do not speculate on whether the mechanism is a force or not, or whether it is visible.

No, you ignored the facts presented that disproved your case. That is different than addressing the point.

Devices exist which can and have measured variations in earth's gravity as small as 6 parts in 109, as detailed here (http://iopscience.iop.org/0026-1394/18/3/006). You were wrong.

The abstract on that article does not say whether they identified variations in g at different heights or locations. It only says that this device is sensitive.

Why should I assume that they've been studying the differences in g at different altitudes?

Why should I assume that the device isn't affected by something as simple as the level of the terrain? Obviously a ball falling down a shaft would be affected by the level of the terrain. If it's in a van how do we know that it's going to places with perfectly level terrain? What controls were put on this?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Harutsedo on June 13, 2011, 10:04:28 PM
I do not speculate on whether the mechanism is a force or not, or whether it is visible.

If it's moving the Earth, it's a bloody force! And I'm not asking you to speculate as to whether it is visible or not, but that it has the property of being visible or not. Honestly, zeteticism doesn't mean you can't use logic.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: General Disarray on June 13, 2011, 10:09:43 PM
They were using variations in gravity to find oil over 80 years ago. (http://books.google.com/books?id=y94DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA220&lpg=PA220&dq=gravitometer+oil&source=bl&ots=l2OysdGWDu&sig=ZBGQ1RNorSvltGHMzglt59X8A9g&hl=en&ei=Xuz2Tcz6Isyw0AHMuZyeCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=gravitometer%20oil&f=false) You're just grasping at straws now.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Moon squirter on June 13, 2011, 10:40:25 PM
Why should I assume that the device isn't affected by something as simple as the level of the terrain? Obviously a ball falling down a shaft would be affected by the level of the terrain. If it's in a van how do we know that it's going to places with perfectly level terrain? What controls were put on this?

You have no evidence that the device is effected by the suggested factors.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 14, 2011, 03:27:59 AM
That's the lame "Just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist" argument again.

Lame?  What's lame is immediately accepting as a fact what your eyes "see" without questioning anything.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on June 14, 2011, 06:47:25 AM
Why should I believe in the invisible when I have the visible as an alternative explanation?

Tom, aren't you tired of beating this horse yet?  It's dead.  The Equivalence Principle killed it a long time ago.  Just let it be.

The equivalence principle has nothing to do with empirical arguments of visible vs. invisible, of emperical observation vs unobserved hypothesis.

Actually, it does.  It says that there is no experiment that you can perform locally that can tell the difference between gravity and acceleration.

I am not arguing that an invisible fantasy mechanism cannot possibly pull things to the ground at a necessary rate. I am contrasting the possibilities and arguing on basis of ab absurdio.

Yes, you are arguing the absurdity of gravity with the equally absurd UA.  ::)

We can see the earth is moving upwards to meet us when we step off our chair. This is a direct visual affirmation that the earth is moving upwards.

From your frame of reference.  Repeat the experiment from the earth's frame of reference and what do you see?

We cannot see anything pulling bodies towards the earth. Your explanation is invisible, undetected, and mysterious.

And that is really quite irrelevant.  You can still observe the effects, even if you can't see the mechanism.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Harutsedo on June 14, 2011, 07:40:20 AM
I'm not mad, am I? Tom is really proposing a visible force, right?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 14, 2011, 09:21:40 AM
I do not speculate on whether the mechanism is a force or not, or whether it is visible.

If it's moving the Earth, it's a bloody force!

That depends on what you mean by force. A Newtonian Force?

Quote from: General Dissarray
They were using variations in gravity to find oil over 80 years ago. You're just grasping at straws now.

The article you linked says nothing about the success-rate of that device.

The police have been using psychics to solve murders for many years.

Proof of psychic powers, right?

Quote from: Hessy
Lame?  What's lame is immediately accepting as a fact what your eyes "see" without questioning anything.

I did consider whether there was a possibility that my eyes were deceiving me and whether I should disregard the visible to support undiscovered invisible fantasies.

My conclusion was that doing that would be stupid.

Quote from: Markjo
Actually, it does.  It says that there is no experiment that you can perform locally that can tell the difference between gravity and acceleration.

No. My argument has nothing to do with the equivalence principle. My argument is visible vs. invisible, sane vs. insane, empirical vs absurd. One explanation clearly has more empirical evidence than the other.

When I step off a chair I can see the earth rising upwards to meet me. I do not see anything pulling anything.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Harutsedo on June 14, 2011, 09:28:35 AM
That depends on what you mean by force. A Newtonian Force?

I suppose that part doesn't really matter. I will define a force to be anything that causes motion in our frame of reference.
I'm going to assume you will accept this definition.
You claim gravity is absurd because it requires something invisible to the naked eye. This is true. So in order for UA to be zetetic, the force must be visible by the naked eye if the Earth were not in the way.

EDIT: You aren't claiming that the Earth is moving by magic, are you?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on June 14, 2011, 09:36:54 AM
I do not speculate on whether the mechanism is a force or not, or whether it is visible.

If it's moving the Earth, it's a bloody force!

That depends on what you mean by force. A Newtonian Force?

What other kind of force could physically move the earth?


Quote from: Markjo
Actually, it does.  It says that there is no experiment that you can perform locally that can tell the difference between gravity and acceleration.

No. My argument has nothing to do with the equivalence principle. My argument is visible vs. invisible, sane vs. insane, empirical vs absurd. One explanation clearly has more empirical evidence than the other.

Step off a chair and you can see the earth rising upwards. You do not see anything pulling anything.

Yes, your argument has everything to do with the equivalence principle, whether you want to admit it or not.   There is exactly the same amount of empirical evidence for you falling to the floor as there is for the floor rising up to meet you because the observations are exactly the same from your frame of reference and the floor's frame of reference.  You don't see anything pulling you to the floor and the floor doesn't see anything pushing it up to meet you.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on June 14, 2011, 10:12:22 AM
Tom, what is your take on magnetism? Do you see the puller particles? Does the first magnet get pushed up to the second or does the second get pulled to the first?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: berny_74 on June 14, 2011, 10:19:19 AM
Obviously a ball falling down a shaft would be affected by the level of the terrain.


A ball falling?  Obviously you spout this nonsense without believing it.  This simple sentence proves that you think things are affected by something that causes them to fall to the Earth and you are trying to use your "Earth rises up to meet me" as troll-bait.


Berny
Does NOT like the new look.



Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Around And About on June 14, 2011, 11:38:56 AM
Obviously a ball falling down a shaft would be affected by the level of the terrain.


A ball falling?  Obviously you spout this nonsense without believing it.  This simple sentence proves that you think things are affected by something that causes them to fall to the Earth and you are trying to use your "Earth rises up to meet me" as troll-bait.


Berny
Does NOT like the new look.

Nono, Berny, you got it all wrong...he was simply describing the event in the manner that you're accustomed to. He meant, of course, "a ball released in mid-air, becoming inert and waiting patiently for the earth/universe to accelerate up to it." This is in accordance with direct first-hand empirical observation, which is what Tom the Zeteticist will be relying on solely now to defend FET.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: General Disarray on June 14, 2011, 12:32:39 PM
This article (http://galitzin.mines.edu/INTROGP/MISC/gravnotes.pdf) shows not only that acceleration varies by location, but also that the sun and moon influence measured acceleration.

A gravity map made by the National Geoditic Survey (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GRAV-D/data/Gulf_grav_data_all.pdf). Other maps found here. (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GRAV-D/data_gulf.shtml)

Another related article:
http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/4981/1/03%20D%27agostino.pdf
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 14, 2011, 01:26:06 PM
Quote from: Harutsedo
So in order for UA to be zetetic, the force must be visible by the naked eye if the Earth were not in the way.

Correct, it should be visible or detectable in some way to be Zetetic.

Quote
Yes, your argument has everything to do with the equivalence principle, whether you want to admit it or not.   There is exactly the same amount of empirical evidence for you falling to the floor as there is for the floor rising up to meet you because the observations are exactly the same from your frame of reference and the floor's frame of reference.  You don't see anything pulling you to the floor and the floor doesn't see anything pushing it up to meet you.

No, my argument has nothing to do with the equivalence principal. The EP says that an upwardly moving earth is indistinguishable from downward pulling puller particles. I am not disputing this.

My argument is that no one has seen or detected downward pulling puller particles, so it should not be assumed or imagined to exist based on the mere possibility alone. They cannot be seen or detected. We can, however, see an upwardly moving earth by simply stepping off of a chair. Therefore an upwardly moving earth is the most empirical explanation.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Moon squirter on June 14, 2011, 02:01:42 PM
My argument is that no one has seen or detected downward pulling puller particles, so it should not be assumed or imagined to exist based on the mere possibility alone. They cannot be seen or detected. We can, however, see an upwardly moving earth by simply stepping off of a chair. Therefore an upwardly moving earth is the most empirical explanation.

As I've said before, the theoretical "downward pulling puller particles" are just theory (they fit into an existing model), therefore are irrelevant to your own observations.  The existence of gravity is not dependent on gravitons, just the same as the the UA is not dependent on the existence of Dark Energy (as far as you are concerned, UA just happens).

To include gravitons in your argument is incorrect.  You have reached a premature conclusion based on ignorance and lack of rigor, not positive evidence.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on June 14, 2011, 03:46:58 PM
My argument is that no one has seen or detected downward pulling puller particles, so it should not be assumed or imagined to exist based on the mere possibility alone.

Then it's a good thing that Quantum Field Theory doesn't base the possibility of the existence of the graviton on the results of your stepping off a chair experiment.  The mutual attraction of massive objects is a well documented phenomenon.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: PizzaPlanet on June 14, 2011, 05:41:02 PM
a well documented phenomenon.
theory*
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: General Disarray on June 14, 2011, 06:28:43 PM
This may as well become a Batman thread as long as Tom refuses to acknowledge that all his arguments have been destroyed.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 14, 2011, 07:54:14 PM
ITT: Tom avoids GD and Markjo
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on June 14, 2011, 08:03:19 PM
a well documented phenomenon.
theory*
No, the phenomenon is fact.  Even FE'ers use gravity to explain the movements of celestial objects.  The mechanism behind the phenomenon is the subject of a number of theories.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 14, 2011, 08:30:48 PM
This may as well become a Batman thread as long as Tom refuses to acknowledge that all his arguments have been destroyed.
What are you talking about? Tom has a well documented argument with those pusher particles.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on June 14, 2011, 09:28:55 PM
Tom, I don't do well with neglect. It makes me emotional...

Tom, what is your take on magnetism? Do you see the puller particles? Does the first magnet get pushed up to the second or does the second get pulled to the first?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: PizzaPlanet on June 15, 2011, 01:56:12 PM
No, the phenomenon is fact.  Even FE'ers use gravity to explain the movements of celestial objects.  The mechanism behind the phenomenon is the subject of a number of theories.
Incorrect. Also, define "massive"
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on June 15, 2011, 02:51:58 PM
No, the phenomenon is fact.  Even FE'ers use gravity to explain the movements of celestial objects.  The mechanism behind the phenomenon is the subject of a number of theories.
Incorrect.

Elaborate.

Also, define "massive"

An object with mass.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 16, 2011, 04:27:11 AM
As I've said before, the theoretical "downward pulling puller particles" are just theory (they fit into an existing model), therefore are irrelevant to your own observations.  The existence of gravity is not dependent on gravitons, just the same as the the UA is not dependent on the existence of Dark Energy (as far as you are concerned, UA just happens).

To include gravitons in your argument is incorrect.  You have reached a premature conclusion based on ignorance and lack of rigor, not positive evidence.

Gravitons/bendy space are not irrelevant to my argument.

When I step off a chair I can observe the earth rise upwards. I can see the ground move upwards and run into me. The ground is rising upwards and pushing itself into me. That's +1 point for the concept of an upwardly accelerating earth.

But what about the concept of something pulling me down? What observational or empirical evidence does that have?  I have not observed anything in the slightest which points to this "pulling" idea. I've seen nothing pulling me. No evidence of gravitons. No evidence of bendy space. No evidence of puller fairies.

While an upwardly moving earth is evidenced by observation, nothing about the concept of a "pull" is evidenced by anything. Not even in labs with the most sensitive of equipment have gravitons, bendy space, or other puller fantasies been detected. There is no reason to believe in fantasy.

I can see that the earth moves upwards. What keeps us pinned to the earth is direct and visible. A direct observation beats out speculation any day of the week.

Tom, I don't do well with neglect. It makes me emotional...

Tom, what is your take on magnetism? Do you see the puller particles? Does the first magnet get pushed up to the second or does the second get pulled to the first?

I do not believe in the given explanation for magnetism. The conventional idea is that there are these little "magnetic photon" messenger particles which tell bodies to move through space in this way or that. No one has seen these "magnetic photons." No one has detected these "magnetic photons," not in any machine or lab. It is complete and utter fantasy and speculation. Yet many are willing to plug their ears to the necessity of evidence and believe the media hype.

As a Zetetics we must look at two magnets coming together and say that the motion is visible to us, but we make no speculation on the mechanism behind it.

We are skeptics. We are empericists. This is the correct way to conduct science. It is not right to pile one speculative hypothesis upon the next in rapid and mumbling succession. That is no way to find the truth.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: PizzaPlanet on June 16, 2011, 04:42:07 AM
Also, define "massive"

An object with mass.
Is that to say you're about to accept my banana challenge?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on June 16, 2011, 05:21:08 AM
Tom, I don't do well with neglect. It makes me emotional...

Tom, what is your take on magnetism? Do you see the puller particles? Does the first magnet get pushed up to the second or does the second get pulled to the first?

As a Zetetics we must look at two magnets coming together and say that the motion is visible to us, but we make no speculation on the mechanism behind it.
Then you agree that two things can be attracted to each other without a visibly clear mechanism behind it.
You also agree with the concept of a frame of reference.
And finally, you agree with the zetetic approach of eliminating all other possible explanations before making any conclusive remarks.

Yet despite all this, you still hold firmly to the fact that the Earth is moving up to your feet and you're not falling to it.

Hypocrite much?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Moon squirter on June 16, 2011, 05:29:27 AM
As I've said before, the theoretical "downward pulling puller particles" are just theory (they fit into an existing model), therefore are irrelevant to your own observations.  The existence of gravity is not dependent on gravitons, just the same as the the UA is not dependent on the existence of Dark Energy (as far as you are concerned, UA just happens).

To include gravitons in your argument is incorrect.  You have reached a premature conclusion based on ignorance and lack of rigor, not positive evidence.

Gravitons/bendy space are not irrelevant to my argument.

That's because your argument is bunk.

You cannot argue for something based on the falsehood (i.e. "I cannot see gravitons", therefore I am not being pulled).  This is because:
Your could also say:  "It feels like the earth is coming up, although I have no independent evidence of a UA.   I know that magnetism is invisible, so perhaps there is another type of invisible force.  Therefore I need to do more research".

Please come up with a coherent argument, then we can continue the debate.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 16, 2011, 08:17:04 AM
Then you agree that two things can be attracted to each other without a visibly clear mechanism behind it.

I didn't' agree to anything. I didn't agree to attraction. Magnets could be pushed together by some means for all we know. I don't make any speculation beyond what is visible and detectable. The movement of the magnets is visible to me, but the cause behind it is unknown at present time.

Quote from: Moon Squirter
That's because your argument is bunk.

You cannot argue for something based on the falsehood (i.e. "I cannot see gravitons", therefore I am not being pulled).  This is because:

    It is an Argument for Ignorance, a basic logical flaw (absence of evidence != evidence for absence)
    People did not discover gravity after gravitons were postulated to exist.  Rather, gravitons attempt to make sense of what is already known.  Your argument is backwards.

My argument isn't "I cannot see gravitons", therefore I am not being pulled." My argument is "There is no evidence that anything is pulling me towards the earth, therefore there is no reason to believe that I am being pulled."

All of your puller phenomena are invisible and speculative. There isn't the slightest bit of evidence for gravitons, bendy space, or whatever other puller fantasies you have up your arsenal. The concept of invisible pull is thoroughly unsupported.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 16, 2011, 08:20:38 AM
Except for the fact that when I step off of a chair, I see myself fall to the Earth. That evidence is as good and relevant as your own.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 16, 2011, 08:31:23 AM
No one has detected these "magnetic photons," not in any machine or lab. It is complete and utter fantasy and speculation. Yet many are willing to plug their ears to the necessity of evidence and believe in the media hype.

Incorrect.  We don't "plug our ears to the necessity of evidence and believe in the media hype".  We produce a functional model that we generally accept as true/fact until new evidence says otherwise.

I find it odd that FE'ers seem to use Russell's Teapot so often, yet balk in situations such as this.

Tom, you seem to be convinced that if there is no evidence for it, it cannot be true. 
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on June 16, 2011, 08:35:50 AM
Quite a persistent one aren't you. Never gonna admit your argument is flawed? So be it.

I didn't' agree to anything. I didn't agree to attraction. Magnets could be pushed together by some means for all we know.
That's idiotic. The only difference between pushing and pulling is the frame of reference in which we observe the movement. Have you not understood this yet?

Then you agree that two things can be attracted to each other without a visibly clear mechanism behind it.
I don't make any speculation beyond what is visible and detectable. The movement of the magnets is visible to me, but the cause behind it is unknown at present time.
You're right about the fact that you can't see the mechanism, therefore you shouldn't be making any judgements about what is happening. Use that exact same argument with either falling to the Earth or the Earth meeting us. It'll finally put this argument to rest and we can finally come to the correct zetetic conclusion, "it is inconclusive".

My argument isn't "I cannot see gravitons", therefore I am not being pulled." My argument is "There is no evidence that anything is pulling me towards the earth, therefore there is no reason to believe that I am being pulled."
So therefore the Earth is being pulled to you?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on June 16, 2011, 10:19:21 AM
Also, define "massive"

An object with mass.
Is that to say you're about to accept my banana challenge?
Perhaps.  Please refresh my memory as to the parameters of your banana challenge.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: PizzaPlanet on June 16, 2011, 08:14:22 PM
Perhaps.  Please refresh my memory as to the parameters of your banana challenge.
Conclusively prove that bananas extort a gravitational force either on each other or on other objects.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on June 16, 2011, 08:32:13 PM
Perhaps.  Please refresh my memory as to the parameters of your banana challenge.
Conclusively prove that bananas extort a gravitational force either on each other or on other objects.
How big are the bananas?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Harutsedo on June 16, 2011, 09:04:14 PM
Conclusively prove that bananas extort a gravitational force either on each other or on other objects.

Can't he use something more massive, like lead or Steve Job's ego?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Moon squirter on June 17, 2011, 12:22:01 AM
Then you agree that two things can be attracted to each other without a visibly clear mechanism behind it.

I didn't' agree to anything. I didn't agree to attraction. Magnets could be pushed together by some means for all we know. I don't make any speculation beyond what is visible and detectable. The movement of the magnets is visible to me, but the cause behind it is unknown at present time.

Quote from: Moon Squirter
That's because your argument is bunk.

You cannot argue for something based on the falsehood (i.e. "I cannot see gravitons", therefore I am not being pulled).  This is because:

    It is an Argument for Ignorance, a basic logical flaw (absence of evidence != evidence for absence)
    People did not discover gravity after gravitons were postulated to exist.  Rather, gravitons attempt to make sense of what is already known.  Your argument is backwards.

My argument isn't "I cannot see gravitons", therefore I am not being pulled." My argument is "There is no evidence that anything is pulling me towards the earth, therefore there is no reason to believe that I am being pulled."

All of your puller phenomena are invisible and speculative. There isn't the slightest bit of evidence for gravitons, bendy space, or whatever other puller fantasies you have up your arsenal. The concept of invisible pull is thoroughly unsupported.

You are still using lack of evidence of <gravitons> to support you UA hypothesis.  Please try again, without using the word "graviton".
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on June 17, 2011, 12:28:30 AM
You are still using lack of evidence of <gravitons> to support you UA hypothesis.  Please try again, without using the word "graviton".
Tom knows fully well his logic is flawed, it's just that we're arguing against a firm believer that is purposely blinding himself in order to hold his position. Backing down is not an option.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 18, 2011, 06:51:36 AM
Now that we've ripped Tom a new one for his UA explanation, we should now address that the sun and moon being discs isn't very Zetetic. The reason I say this is because unless you pull some wacky ass bendy garbage out of nowhere, there is really no reason that observing the sun and moon should conclude that they are discs and not spheres. It's not hard to see what a disc would look like at different angles (throw a Frisbee around for a bit), and the path of the sun and moon are not consistent with how a giant disc floating over Earth would look.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 18, 2011, 07:04:37 AM
I guess you couldn't really use simple observation to conclude the sun is in fact a sphere, but you can conclude it isn't a disc this way. The moon is much easier. It's well documented that the moon wobbles a bit, and you can see different parts of the surface from when it first rises to when it sets.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Lord Wilmore on June 20, 2011, 02:44:18 AM
Do any RE'ers here actually think through these ludicrous arguments, or are they simply a default setting?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on June 20, 2011, 04:34:53 AM
Do any RE'ers here actually think through these ludicrous arguments, or are they simply a default setting?

I once thought relativity was a ludicrous theory, that is until I studied it.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Artexflow on June 20, 2011, 07:02:56 AM
Hello, I'm new and French, so please excuse my bad english.

I'm reading this thread since some hours, and something is annoying me.

Tom you say that Earth is accelerating toward us, but how do you explain that when I take a heavy thing, this thing remains heavy after I took it ?

I mean, if I'm on a car driving and catch my Mc Donalds, my Bic Mac menu is now moving at the same speed as me, and it haves no reason to have weight...

Oh fudge I'm sorry, translating my thought is kind of hard...
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 20, 2011, 08:16:22 AM
Do any RE'ers here actually think through these ludicrous arguments, or are they simply a default setting?
Do any FE'ers here actually think through their ludicrous arguments, or are they simply a default setting?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on June 20, 2011, 08:31:09 AM
Oh fudge I'm sorry, translating my thought is kind of hard...
We understand your thoughts, but they're wrong. If an object is accelerating towards you or you're accelerating towards an object, it doesn't make a difference. You both feel the weight of each other.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Artexflow on June 20, 2011, 12:27:47 PM
Oh fudge I'm sorry, translating my thought is kind of hard...
We understand your thoughts, but they're wrong. If an object is accelerating towards you or you're accelerating towards an object, it doesn't make a difference. You both feel the weight of each other.

Ok so, sorry I'm just a duchebag :D
My mind representation of what I described must me false... In the real world I mean.

I still don't understand why Tom is uncapable to admit that we can feel us falling when we, well... fall, without immediatly thinking about gravitons or anything sub-atomic.
Tom, you say you see the Earth coming to you, and you then think acceleration. Then, you don't argue on what is actually "pushing" the Earth. Why can't you admit that someone can feel like he falls, then think gravity without be sure that there is gravitons. When we say that we fall we're not speaking about gravitons, but only about our feeling.

It's our feeling against your feeling, please admit that we CAN be correct on this specific point. Don't mind if something else make you believe anything else, but admit that on this specific point your opinion is not better.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Lord Wilmore on June 20, 2011, 06:09:53 PM
'Gravity' and an accelerating Earth are locally indistinguishable to the senses. To say that when you step off a chair, you can tell you're moving towards the ground (and not the other way around) is nonsense, be you RE'er or FE'er.


All I can tell when I step off a chair is that while 'in the air', I feel no force affecting me. When I touch the ground, I feel a force affecting me. I can't see any magical pulling force with my eyes, but I can feel the pushing force of the Earth. Hence in this scenario there is direct sensorial evidence for the latter, but not the former.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Around And About on June 20, 2011, 06:33:14 PM
Artex, perhaps this would help: http://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principe_d'équivalence (http://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principe_d'équivalence) ???
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on June 20, 2011, 07:12:23 PM
'Gravity' and an accelerating Earth are locally indistinguishable to the senses. To say that when you step off a chair, you can tell you're moving towards the ground (and not the other way around) is nonsense, be you RE'er or FE'er.


All I can tell when I step off a chair is that while 'in the air', I feel no force affecting me. When I touch the ground, I feel a force affecting me. I can't see any magical pulling force with my eyes, but I can feel the pushing force of the Earth. Hence in this scenario there is direct sensorial evidence for the latter, but not the former.
I reckon it would takes quite a leap of faith to move to the "earth is moving up towards me" theory. Children from a young age naturally believe they're falling to the Earth, because that is what our senses tell us (whether they're being deceived or not, this is where we naturally believe). You've just gone and twisted it around saying that since you can't find a reason as to why you're falling to the Earth, the Earth must be falling to you...

And your stance of not seeing puller particles thus you're not being pulled would hold at least a little ground IFF electromagnetism didn't exist. Empirical evidence of a phenomenon in which puller particles can't be seen yet there is still a pull shuts your theory down instantly.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 20, 2011, 07:35:45 PM
'Gravity' and an accelerating Earth are locally indistinguishable to the senses. To say that when you step off a chair, you can tell you're moving towards the ground (and not the other way around) is nonsense, be you RE'er or FE'er.


All I can tell when I step off a chair is that while 'in the air', I feel no force affecting me. When I touch the ground, I feel a force affecting me. I can't see any magical pulling force with my eyes, but I can feel the pushing force of the Earth. Hence in this scenario there is direct sensorial evidence for the latter, but not the former.

I don't understand what's so hard about changing around a few phrases of that to make something like this:

Quote

All I can tell when I step off a chair is that while 'in the air', I feel no force affecting me. When I touch the ground, I feel a force affecting me. I can't see any magical pulling pushing force with my eyes, but I can feel the pushing pulling force of the Earth. Hence in this scenario there is direct sensorial evidence for the latter, but not the former.

Therein lies "direct sensorial evidence" for gravity, but not "UA".
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Lord Wilmore on June 21, 2011, 06:11:58 PM
The difference is that you don't feel any 'pull' while in the air, which is what you would expect to feel if you were being pulled. Yet your feet will still make contact with the Earth, at which point you will feel its force.


The only logical conclusion given such direct sensorial evidence is that the Earth moves toward us, and not the other way around.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on June 21, 2011, 06:41:21 PM
The difference is that you don't feel any 'pull' while in the air, which is what you would expect to feel if you were being pulled.
Exactly. If you can't feel it, it doesn't mean it's not happening. As you've already said, they're locally indistinguishable, so why the hell are you saying UA holds more ground? And if its because of those invisible puller particles, well... magnetism.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Harutsedo on June 21, 2011, 06:42:03 PM
The difference is that you don't feel any 'pull' while in the air, which is what you would expect to feel if you were being pulled. Yet your feet will still make contact with the Earth, at which point you will feel its force.


The only logical conclusion given such direct sensorial evidence is that the Earth moves toward us, and not the other way around.

We do feel the pull. It's called acceleration. The detection of acceleration is one of our basic senses. And it's direct. You aren't making sense. There is NO difference between the Earth going up, and everything else going down.

EDIT: The name of the sense is the kinesthetic sense, according to God (Wikipedia).
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 21, 2011, 06:42:28 PM
The difference is that you don't feel any 'pull' while in the air, which is what you would expect to feel if you were being pulled. Yet your feet will still make contact with the Earth, at which point you will feel its force.


The only logical conclusion given such direct sensorial evidence is that the Earth moves toward us, and not the other way around.
But according to what I see, I go from a high point to a lower point. That sounds like falling to me.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on June 21, 2011, 06:44:50 PM
The difference is that you don't feel any 'pull' while in the air, which is what you would expect to feel if you were being pulled. Yet your feet will still make contact with the Earth, at which point you will feel its force.


The only logical conclusion given such direct sensorial evidence is that the Earth moves toward us, and not the other way around.

We do feel the pull. It's called acceleration. The detection of acceleration is one of our basic senses. And it's direct. You aren't making sense. There is NO difference between the Earth going up, and everything else going down.

Oh please no, Wilmore is just going to feed off of this wrong post and completely ignore the rest of them...

You can't feel acceleration, you can only feel the force of contact between you and let's say, the car seat. What your stomach feels when you're falling is a lack of this contact force.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 21, 2011, 07:11:54 PM
The difference is that you don't feel any 'pull' while in the air, which is what you would expect to feel if you were being pulled. Yet your feet will still make contact with the Earth, at which point you will feel its force.


THIS is my biggest problem with your argument.  Why is it impossible for me to feel 'pull' while in the air?  Who are you to refute what I feel?

The entire argument is moot.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 21, 2011, 07:27:15 PM
The difference is that you don't feel any 'pull' while in the air, which is what you would expect to feel if you were being pulled. Yet your feet will still make contact with the Earth, at which point you will feel its force.


THIS is my biggest problem with your argument.  Why is it impossible for me to feel 'pull' while in the air?  Who are you to refute what I feel?

The entire argument is moot.
Tom tells me what I see all the time.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on June 22, 2011, 06:43:48 AM
Fucking EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE

Read about it.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Lord Wilmore on June 22, 2011, 05:12:14 PM
Puttah is on the money. Hessy and Harutsedo, please tick one of the following boxes:


[ ] The equivalence principle is correct, and so is Lord Wilmore


[ ] The equivalence principle is incorrect, and so is Lord Wilmore


If you really think you can feel the pull of the Earth, how can you accept the equivalence principle? You guys need to be more consistent.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Harutsedo on June 22, 2011, 06:27:10 PM
[ ] The equivalence principle is correct, and so is Lord Wilmore
[ ] The equivalence principle is incorrect, and so is Lord Wilmore
[X] The equivalence principle is correct, as well as most of what Wilmore said
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 22, 2011, 08:35:32 PM
Puttah is on the money. Hessy and Harutsedo, please tick one of the following boxes:


[ ] The equivalence principle is correct, and so is Lord Wilmore


[ ] The equivalence principle is incorrect, and so is Lord Wilmore


If you really think you can feel the pull of the Earth, how can you accept the equivalence principle? You guys need to be more consistent.

Possibility #1 - The Earth is round, and you feel a push
Possibility #2 - The Earth is round, and you feel a pull
Possibility #3 - The Earth is flat, and you feel a push
Possibility #4 - The Earth is flat, and you feel a pull

As far as this discussion is concerned, all four are equally reasonable.  This is because (due to the Equivalence Principle [thanks, Puttah]) a push and a pull feel the same way and are indistinguishable from each other and are therefore subjectively experienced.  You feel a push; I feel a pull. 

Essentially, the Equivalence Principle stands because a push and a pull feel identical. 

To claim that the Earth accelerates (and is therefore flat) because you feel a "push" is as useless as saying that the Earth attracts mass (and is therefore round) because you feel a "pull".  This is the point I'm trying to make.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 22, 2011, 08:41:27 PM
Hessy, how could you feel either a "push" or a "pull" if the equivalence principle is true?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 22, 2011, 09:24:29 PM
Hessy, how could you feel either a "push" or a "pull" if the equivalence principle is true?

The EP states that they're indistinguishable from each other, therefore it's up to 'opinion' as to whether you feel a "push" or "pull", hence why different people report feeling either.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 22, 2011, 09:26:41 PM
Hessy, how could you feel either a "push" or a "pull" if the equivalence principle is true?

The EP states that they're indistinguishable from each other, therefore it's up to 'opinion' as to whether you feel a "push" or "pull", hence why different people report feeling either.

Don't you see that the EP shows that you actually feel neither?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on June 22, 2011, 10:16:06 PM
Don't you see that the EP shows that you actually feel neither?
Well yes, but only while you're falling (neglecting air resistance). You can certainly feel a push/pull (in technical scientific terms, this is called a force) when you're standing on the ground.

All in all, Simply feeling the contact force between you and the ground is insufficient to determine whether you are accelerating towards the Earth, the Earth is accelerating towards you, or both.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 22, 2011, 10:31:04 PM
Don't you see that the EP shows that you actually feel neither?
Well yes, but only while you're falling (neglecting air resistance). You can certainly feel a push/pull (in technical scientific terms, this is called a force) when you're standing on the ground.

I feel no such force.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on June 22, 2011, 10:55:28 PM
Don't you see that the EP shows that you actually feel neither?
Well yes, but only while you're falling (neglecting air resistance). You can certainly feel a push/pull (in technical scientific terms, this is called a force) when you're standing on the ground.

I feel no such force.
I've been told you can feel light as a feather when heavily medicated.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Harutsedo on June 23, 2011, 04:52:32 AM
Don't you see that the EP shows that you actually feel neither?
Well yes, but only while you're falling (neglecting air resistance). You can certainly feel a push/pull (in technical scientific terms, this is called a force) when you're standing on the ground.

I feel no such force.

I'm sorry one of your basic senses is damaged. Are you all right? Most people can detect acceleration.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Lord Wilmore on June 23, 2011, 05:32:10 AM
Hessy, how could you feel either a "push" or a "pull" if the equivalence principle is true?

The EP states that they're indistinguishable from each other, therefore it's up to 'opinion' as to whether you feel a "push" or "pull", hence why different people report feeling either.


Once you're on the ground, perhaps. However, while in the air you certainly do not 'feel' any pull if the equivalence principle is correct. Once on the ground you certainly do feel a pull/push. Are we to assume that the Earth only attracts us when we're in contact with it? This would not explain how after walking off the edge of something, we always end up on the Earth. We would therefore have to assume the existence of a force which cannot be detected via direct sensorial evidence, which is not in accordance with the Zetetic Method.


An accelerating Earth conforms to all the direct sensorial evidence we have layed out in this discussion. Gravity does not.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on June 23, 2011, 05:42:14 AM
You can certainly feel a push/pull (in technical scientific terms, this is called a force) when you're standing on the ground.

I feel no such force.

Once on the ground you certainly do feel a pull/push.

Ooooh a disagreement amongst the brotherhood. Maybe you can somehow fit both of your statements into FET, so no one gets hurt of course.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 23, 2011, 06:36:49 AM
Why isn't my observation of myself falling from a chair to the Earth not considered evidence of gravity? You can't tell me what I see.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on June 23, 2011, 07:57:43 AM
Why isn't my observation of myself falling from a chair to the Earth not considered evidence of gravity? You can't tell me what I see.

Because Lord Wilmore thinks that if you can't feel you're being pulled, then a force isn't being applied to you.

I haven't decided whether I should give him a crash course in Physics101 just yet or not.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: sillyrob on June 23, 2011, 08:34:45 AM
Why isn't my observation of myself falling from a chair to the Earth not considered evidence of gravity? You can't tell me what I see.

Because Lord Wilmore thinks that if you can't feel you're being pulled, then a force isn't being applied to you.

I haven't decided whether I should give him a crash course in Physics101 just yet or not.
I never mentioned being pulled. I simply said when I walk off of a chair, I see myself fall to the ground. That should be equally relevant to what they say, seeing as how it's first hand testimonial.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on June 23, 2011, 09:56:45 AM
Why isn't my observation of myself falling from a chair to the Earth not considered evidence of gravity? You can't tell me what I see.

Because Lord Wilmore thinks that if you can't feel you're being pulled, then a force isn't being applied to you.

I haven't decided whether I should give him a crash course in Physics101 just yet or not.
I never mentioned being pulled. I simply said when I walk off of a chair, I see myself fall to the ground. That should be equally relevant to what they say, seeing as how it's first hand testimonial.
I think its been generally accepted that if we have a weight then there is a force present. This force means either we are being pulled to the Earth or the Earth is being pushed towards us. Lord Wilmore's argument is that he can't feel himself being pulled when in midair, so the Earth must be being pushed up towards him.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: General Disarray on June 23, 2011, 10:31:32 AM
I just picked up my cell phone, it definitely feels like there's something pulling it down.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 23, 2011, 12:43:04 PM
you certainly do not 'feel' any pull

I still have a problem with you claiming you know what I feel.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Around And About on June 23, 2011, 03:44:24 PM
I just picked up my cell phone, it definitely feels like there's something pulling it down.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: parsec on June 24, 2011, 11:08:45 PM
I just picked up my cell phone, it definitely feels like there's something pulling it down.

For me it feels im pushing it up.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 25, 2011, 05:42:27 AM
I just picked up my cell phone, it definitely feels like there's something pulling it down.

For me it feels im pushing it up.

Lo!  The Equivalence Principle!
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: PizzaPlanet on June 25, 2011, 06:10:41 AM
Lo!  The Equivalence Principle!
Yes, that's what he meant. Your point?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Hessy on June 25, 2011, 07:05:20 AM
Lo!  The Equivalence Principle!
Yes, that's what he meant. Your point?

Lo!  The Equivalence Principle!
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on June 25, 2011, 07:31:14 AM
Fucking EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE

Read about it.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Around And About on June 25, 2011, 11:46:04 AM
The point, for me at least, is not that you could invoke the Equivalence Principle but that Zetetically you would have no reason to.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on June 25, 2011, 07:50:52 PM
The point, for me at least, is not that you could invoke the Equivalence Principle but that Zetetically you would have no reason to.
I fully agree.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Lord Wilmore on June 28, 2011, 05:39:49 PM
Ooooh a disagreement amongst the brotherhood. Maybe you can somehow fit both of your statements into FET, so no one gets hurt of course.


 ::)


Because Lord Wilmore thinks that if you can't feel you're being pulled, then a force isn't being applied to you.

I haven't decided whether I should give him a crash course in Physics101 just yet or not.


I did not say or imply any such thing. Perhaps what's in order is not a crash course in Physics101 for me, but rather a crash course in reading comprehension for you.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on June 28, 2011, 09:29:04 PM
Because Lord Wilmore thinks that if you can't feel you're being pulled, then a force isn't being applied to you.

I haven't decided whether I should give him a crash course in Physics101 just yet or not.


I did not say or imply any such thing. Perhaps what's in order is not a crash course in Physics101 for me, but rather a crash course in reading comprehension for you.
Of course you didn't imply it since you don't know that you're wrong. And no, it's definitely the crash course for you.

When we're in a car and it starts to accelerate, we feel our backs pushing into the seat. In fact, we can feel our whole body (even our eyes) pushing back. This is because the contact force is acting on our backs and this create a series of Newton pairs (seat pushes one way, back pushes other way - eye sockets push one way, eyes push other way).

This is the scenario you're thinking of and your claim is that since we don't feel such an effect, then gravity cannot be real. This is wrong.

Gravity doesn't behave in the same manner. It doesn't act like a propulsion system attached to our feet or head or whichever other body part you wish. It acts everywhere. Our entire body - every last atom - is accelerated at the same rate, so there is no strain on any parts of our body as we fall, thus, we don't feel anything. If we were very tall with respect to the Earth's size however, then our feet would feel a larger acceleration than our head (since our head is so much further from the centre of the Earth) and in this case, our body would feel like it's stretching apart slightly.

If you want an example of this phenomenon, consider a magnet being succumb to a strong magnetic field. If the magnet is broken into 2 pieces and then stuck together with some low-grade glue, the pieces won't tear apart if the magnet is accelerated in a controlled manner. Now if we were to replace one of the pieces of the magnet with something that isn't magnetic, then both pieces will tear apart because only the magnet will be accelerated while the other won't be, so there will exist a Newton pair between them that has a non-zero force.

/crash course physics101
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: John Davis on July 08, 2011, 01:56:09 PM
Because Lord Wilmore thinks that if you can't feel you're being pulled, then a force isn't being applied to you.

I haven't decided whether I should give him a crash course in Physics101 just yet or not.


I did not say or imply any such thing. Perhaps what's in order is not a crash course in Physics101 for me, but rather a crash course in reading comprehension for you.
Of course you didn't imply it since you don't know that you're wrong. And no, it's definitely the crash course for you.

When we're in a car and it starts to accelerate, we feel our backs pushing into the seat. In fact, we can feel our whole body (even our eyes) pushing back. This is because the contact force is acting on our backs and this create a series of Newton pairs (seat pushes one way, back pushes other way - eye sockets push one way, eyes push other way).

This is the scenario you're thinking of and your claim is that since we don't feel such an effect, then gravity cannot be real. This is wrong.

Gravity doesn't behave in the same manner. It doesn't act like a propulsion system attached to our feet or head or whichever other body part you wish. It acts everywhere. Our entire body - every last atom - is accelerated at the same rate, so there is no strain on any parts of our body as we fall, thus, we don't feel anything. If we were very tall with respect to the Earth's size however, then our feet would feel a larger acceleration than our head (since our head is so much further from the centre of the Earth) and in this case, our body would feel like it's stretching apart slightly.

If you want an example of this phenomenon, consider a magnet being succumb to a strong magnetic field. If the magnet is broken into 2 pieces and then stuck together with some low-grade glue, the pieces won't tear apart if the magnet is accelerated in a controlled manner. Now if we were to replace one of the pieces of the magnet with something that isn't magnetic, then both pieces will tear apart because only the magnet will be accelerated while the other won't be, so there will exist a Newton pair between them that has a non-zero force.

/crash course physics101
Here ya go: have a read (http://books.google.com/books?id=3H46AAAAMAAJ&dq=general%20and%20special%20relativity%20einstein&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on July 09, 2011, 09:00:35 PM
Gravity doesn't behave in the same manner. It doesn't act like a propulsion system attached to our feet or head or whichever other body part you wish. It acts everywhere.
Here ya go: have a read (http://books.google.com/books?id=3H46AAAAMAAJ&dq=general%20and%20special%20relativity%20einstein&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q&f=false)
My guess is that you're being pedantic over "everywhere".

Why even bother bumping this thread for something so silly?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: John Davis on July 09, 2011, 09:18:58 PM
Gravity doesn't behave in the same manner. It doesn't act like a propulsion system attached to our feet or head or whichever other body part you wish. It acts everywhere.
Here ya go: have a read (http://books.google.com/books?id=3H46AAAAMAAJ&dq=general%20and%20special%20relativity%20einstein&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q&f=false)
My guess is that you're being pedantic over "everywhere".

Why even bother bumping this thread for something so silly?
Incorrect.  You have a fundamental misunderstanding (or lack of understanding) of the linked text.  I bumped it for your benefit.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on July 09, 2011, 10:58:47 PM
Incorrect.  You have a fundamental misunderstanding (or lack of understanding) of the linked text.  I bumped it for your benefit.
Then would you care to elaborate on what I said that isn't correct?
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: John Davis on July 09, 2011, 11:22:28 PM
Apologies, my mistake.  I must have gotten confused over which poster I was reading earlier in the thread or something.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on July 10, 2011, 12:10:32 AM
No worries.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: rin112 on August 01, 2011, 11:39:03 AM
The Universal Accelerator is Zetetic.

When I get up on a chair and walk off the edge I can see that the earth rises up towards me. I can directly observe that the earth is moving upwards. This is an empirical observation.

I cannot see graviton particles or bendy space. There is no direct empirical evidence that sub-atomic particles are pulling me towards the surface of thee earth or that the fabric of space is bending. Hence, there is no reason to support those ideas over one which is directly observable.

By virtue of my many years of education and research in the Zetetic texts, I am qualified to say what is and is not valid evidence, and what is and is not a trustworthy source.

Someone posting on this forum during the course of debate claiming that they saw something to win that debate is not a valid form of evidence.

On the other hand, an impartial researcher on a third-party website saying that they saw something is a valid form of evidence.

Show us the logs of an impartial researcher and it will be a valid form of evidence.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Skeleton on August 01, 2011, 12:02:41 PM
The force holding objects to the earth is not uniform but varies in different places.

[/UA]
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Theodolite on August 01, 2011, 01:54:33 PM
Irrelevant.  Personal observation for this phenomenon is completely subjective, regardless of how ridiculous it may sound.

It's not subjective. When I step off a chair I don't observe anything pulling me. I observe the earth rising upwards to meet me. That's a direct observation.

It's the RE'ers who are saying that our senses are fooling us and that it's really just something invisible pulling us to the earth. RE'ers are choosing illusion over direct observation.

Incorrect, you notice the distance between you and the floor decreasing, the rest is all speculation
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Thork on August 01, 2011, 02:06:54 PM
The force holding objects to the earth is not uniform but varies in different places.

[/UA]
No, we have had many threads proving this to be a baseless RE claim. NASA can make as many 'gravity' maps as they like. It is not what happens on earth.
[/gravity]
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: The Knowledge on August 01, 2011, 02:13:08 PM
The force holding objects to the earth is not uniform but varies in different places.

[/UA]
No, we have had many threads proving this to be a baseless RE claim. NASA can make as many 'gravity' maps as they like. It is not what happens on earth.
[/gravity]

Not all gravity measurements are made by Nasa, you know. A friend of mine did some several years ago in Chile with Raleigh International using ground based equipment. If you say it's a baseless claim then you're doing little more than refusing to accept good evidence.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: markjo on August 01, 2011, 02:42:03 PM
The force holding objects to the earth is not uniform but varies in different places.

[/UA]
No, we have had many threads proving this to be a baseless RE claim. NASA can make as many 'gravity' maps as they like. It is not what happens on earth.
[/gravity]

Tell that to the oil exploration industry:
http://hendrikengineering.blogspot.com/2006_06_25_archive.html
Quote
Gravity Survey

Gravity surveys are performed to examine bedrock topography under the Earth’s surface, map large metallic mineral deposits, and locate subsurface caverns and also contacts between geologic units of differing mass and density.  It is a fairly complicated system but it is based on the premise that a target, oil reserve in this case, has a different density from the surrounding geology.  Computer models are once again generated to depict the general area where such gravity changes occur. Once the gravity survey indicates an area where there is density differences it is time to perform a seismic survey.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Theodolite on August 01, 2011, 04:19:19 PM
Irrelevant.  Personal observation for this phenomenon is completely subjective, regardless of how ridiculous it may sound.

It's not subjective. When I step off a chair I don't observe anything pulling me. I observe the earth rising upwards to meet me. That's a direct observation.

It's the RE'ers who are saying that our senses are fooling us and that it's really just something invisible pulling us to the earth. RE'ers are choosing illusion over direct observation.


Incorrect, you notice the distance between you and the floor decreasing, the rest is all speculation


I believe my statement deserves comment from the RE community.  I believe I have proven that your beliefs are based on non zetetic assumption
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Puttah on August 02, 2011, 01:04:31 AM
Been there, done that. TB was going through an ignorance period again.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: General Disarray on August 04, 2011, 01:05:47 PM
Updated the OP to include a couple more non-zetetic claims made by Bishop.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: momentia on August 04, 2011, 04:24:07 PM
Irrelevant.  Personal observation for this phenomenon is completely subjective, regardless of how ridiculous it may sound.

It's not subjective. When I step off a chair I don't observe anything pulling me. I observe the earth rising upwards to meet me. That's a direct observation.

It's the RE'ers who are saying that our senses are fooling us and that it's really just something invisible pulling us to the earth. RE'ers are choosing illusion over direct observation.

a positive charged object and negatively charged object attract each other. If you put the negatively charged object in a huge wooden sphere, and put a small positively charged object on the surface, the positively charged object is pulled to the sphere by an invisible force, though it looks to him like the sphere is rising to meet him. Just because you can't see gravity doesn't mean you can't have it.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: General Disarray on August 04, 2011, 04:42:00 PM
That is one of the flaws with zeteticism, you cannot consider the possibility that anything may be beyond your ability to sense, and must invent a flawed incomplete mechanism to explain everything.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: whatnewguy on August 04, 2011, 06:53:07 PM
That is one of the flaws with zeteticism, you cannot consider the possibility that anything may be beyond your ability to sense, and must invent a flawed incomplete mechanism to explain everything.

Oh, I wouldn't go quite that far.  Zeteticism is great when dealing with things that fall neatly within the realm of our everyday experience, or behave according to mechanisms that are entirely observable.

The problem is, there are a lot of things in the universe that are beyond our capability to observe and which are also useful to us.  Unless you subscribe to the view that the universe was created specifically for human beings to inhabit (not an uncommon view, I think), then you must accept that we exist "accidentally."  That is to say, that the universe will continue to exist independent of humans when we become extinct and it existed before humans did.

From an evolutionary standpoint, our capability to observe certain phenomena in the world around us is entirely based on what physical things happen around us at a high enough frequency to be useful.  For example, although we are constantly bombarded by waves from most of the electromagnetic spectrum, we are only able to directly observe a very small range of this spectrum -- that of visible light.  That is largely because the Sun's emissions tend to peak in or near that range, and because this range of waves is more likely to reflect off of matter that is common in our environment.

So as a pure zeteticist, one is stuck explaining a fairly limited range of phenomena.  It is certainly possible to come up with pretty good, workable explanations in the realm which zetetics can operate, but there are definitely things that are far beyond a strictly observational capacity to explain.  Things which science has had great success in understanding, predicting and manipulating, but also things which are roundly rejected by the zetetic community because they rely on conclusions drawn from inductive evidence and data.
Title: Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
Post by: Theodolite on August 04, 2011, 08:22:39 PM
I believe that Zeteticism is a very poor concept, and does not contribute to the advancement of anything except individual ego's.  The whole concept is dependant on believing that there are no experts, and you can individually determine the merits of other peoples research and professions without first undertaking an equal investment of education and experience.

If the whole world was zetetic, we would all live on farms, and each of us would be inventing our own language.  You would not be learning anything from anyone without first learning it on your own.