The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: TheDerangedWang on November 05, 2006, 06:44:35 AM

Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: TheDerangedWang on November 05, 2006, 06:44:35 AM
Many FE's use former advances in science to prove the fact that just becuase it sounds far out now, it might not be in the future. For instance, they might claim that Newton or Galileo sounded radical at the time and people tried to shut them up, yet their ideas are widely accepted now and so why shouldnt the FE theory?

Answer: In each of the cases above and in all cases of past histroy where the status quo was challenged, the challengers were the ones that offered substantiated and undeniable truth that completely discredited the current theory. FE's have not done that, all they have done is asked the status quo to be proven. When it is proven, they simply claim conspiracy or fake evidence. FE's havent a shred of evidence, conspiracy or not. Dark matter, wall of ice, flat earth..there nice opinions, but they arent backed up by anything provable since as soon as one tries to prove their statements, they scream..it cant be done since the gov't is agaisnt you, etc

Conclusion: The FE theory will never "be in the loop" cause their approach to get their views accepted is different than that of people before. The burden of  proof is on them because the round earth is the accepted TRUTH, not theory. So for all you FE's out there, ask not me to prove to you, but ask you what you can prove to us.

Besides, 1.2 Billion Chinese, and abut 3 Billion Asians believe in the Round Earth theory...it's simply mathematically improbable that, that many asians can be wrong...including myself :lol:
Title: Re: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: EnragedPenguin on November 05, 2006, 07:23:59 AM
I agree that the burden of proof lies with the flat Eathers to prove their theory; however, if a round Earther wants to claim that the theory is false, the burden of proof will lie with them.

Flat Earthers have already attempted to prove their theory with Samuel Rowbotham's Earth: Not a Globe. If you want to claim that the FE theory is false, the burden of proof is now on you.
Title: Re: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: Kryptid on November 05, 2006, 10:15:10 AM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"

Flat Earthers have already attempted to prove their theory with Samuel Rowbotham's Earth: Not a Globe. If you want to claim that the FE theory is false, the burden of proof is now on you.

Still, I ask, why do you people believe Samuel Rowbotham? How do you know he didn't just make up the stuff he wrote in that book? Since Flat-Earthers seem to have the motto of "proove it to me or I won't believe it", then why do they choose to believe a man who did not actually proove the Earth was flat?

He made claims.

So do other scientists.

Why choose to believe his claims over other scientists?

What makes his claims better or more authentic than other scientists?
Title: Re: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: GeoGuy on November 05, 2006, 10:47:04 AM
Quote from: "Kryptid"
What makes his claims better or more authentic than other scientists?


The fact that his observations fit perfectly with those of the FE's
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: Joseph Bloom on November 05, 2006, 10:54:30 AM
I thought you were a round earther?
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: GeoGuy on November 05, 2006, 10:56:51 AM
I don't believe I ever said I wasn't.
Title: Re: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: phaseshifter on November 05, 2006, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "Kryptid"
What makes his claims better or more authentic than other scientists?


The fact that his observations fit perfectly with those of the FE's


How is that an explanation?
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: CrimsonKing on November 05, 2006, 11:54:14 AM
which scientist are you going to believe, the one who agrees with you, or the one who doesn't, if they both had evidence to proove their hypothesis?
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: link222 on November 05, 2006, 11:56:46 AM
The choice is obviously going to be biased but to make it entierly scientific, you would need more proof on one side thenthe other which would mean further testing
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: CrimsonKing on November 05, 2006, 12:05:00 PM
Which means we need more FE scientists.

Since there there is a huge stigmaupon the FE model, this will be difficult to accomplish
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: Max Fagin on November 05, 2006, 12:12:18 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
which scientist are you going to believe, the one who agrees with you, or the one who doesn't, if they both had evidence to proove their hypothesis?


The difference is that, unlike the rest of science, Rowbothams experiments have never been reliably repeated.

Think about it.  If a scientists results can't be duplicated in 150 years, doesn't that say something about his credibility?
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: EnragedPenguin on November 05, 2006, 12:19:00 PM
Quote from: "Max Fagin"
Think about it.  If a scientists results can't be duplicated in 150 years, doesn't that say something about his credibility?


Have you tried duplicating his results? If not, how do you know they can't be duplicated?
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: Max Fagin on November 05, 2006, 12:49:46 PM
As a matter of fact, EnragedPenguin, yes I have.

His first seven experiments, for example, are all basically the same thing.  He observes an object at distances great enough for the curvature of the Earth to be significant.  He claims that he saw no "sinking effect" as the object got farther away.

While RE'ers and FE'ers may debate the cause of a ship "sinking" as it sails away, I think we can all agree that the effect does occur.  In addition, I have personally observed this phenomena.  It doesn't say anything about the shape of the Earth, but it does say something about Rowbothams results.

The rest of his experiments I havent personally duplicated, but that is because many of them are dependant on the conclusions from experiments 1-7.  If the conclusions in the first experiments are invalid, it negates most (But I'll admit not all) of his later work.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: EnragedPenguin on November 05, 2006, 01:14:52 PM
Quote from: "Max Fagin"
His first seven experiments, for example, are all basically the same thing.  He observes an object at distances great enough for the curvature of the Earth to be significant.  He claims that he saw no "sinking effect" as the object got farther away.


Did you replicate his experiments? If you didn't, how do you know that the results he reported were false? Perhaps there wasn't a sinking effect under the conditions he was using.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: phaseshifter on November 05, 2006, 02:05:50 PM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
which scientist are you going to believe, the one who agrees with you, or the one who doesn't, if they both had evidence to proove their hypothesis?


I'm going to analyse the evidence, and then, I will beleive the one whose experiment  I was able to dupplicate several times, getting the same results. What I agree with is irrelevant.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: CrimsonKing on November 05, 2006, 02:17:50 PM
I can duplicate experiments for both, get the same results as the two, and so each seems to be perfectly viable.  In this case, I will go for the one I agree with more.
Title: Re: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: EnragedPenguin on November 05, 2006, 05:01:01 PM
Quote from: "TheDerangedWang"
WE HAVE DISPROVEN THE FLAT EARTH THEORY, ITS NOT OUR FAULT U GUYS ARE IN DENIAL


I haven't seen it disproven yet. I've seen some experiments that can be done to prove or disprove it, but no one here has tried performing them.
Title: Re: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: BOGWarrior89 on November 05, 2006, 05:41:20 PM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "TheDerangedWang"
WE HAVE DISPROVEN THE FLAT EARTH THEORY, ITS NOT OUR FAULT U GUYS ARE IN DENIAL


I haven't seen it disproven yet. I've seen some experiments that can be done to prove or disprove it, but no one here has tried performing them.


To further EnragedPenguin's argument, WE could be the ones that are in denial.  (FYI: Me=RoundEarther)
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: link222 on November 05, 2006, 08:30:31 PM
the thing is, it could take a really long time for us to see if it is a round or flat earth. Every time something is proven wrong with the flat earth theory, the theory can easily change to fix it. That is what one is supposed to do with a theory.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: Joseph Bloom on November 06, 2006, 12:51:09 AM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
I don't believe I ever said I wasn't.


Then act like it. Your supposed to be on our side idiot.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: TheEngineer on November 06, 2006, 12:52:55 AM
Ooh, what are we choosing sides for?  Dodgeball?
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: Joseph Bloom on November 06, 2006, 12:55:47 AM
If your a round earther then you should argue for RE why is that so hard to do?
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: TheEngineer on November 06, 2006, 01:01:03 AM
I wouldn't want to argue on the same side as you.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: Joseph Bloom on November 06, 2006, 01:04:27 AM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
I wouldn't want to argue on the same side as you.


Up yours. :roll:
Title: Re: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: bibicul on November 06, 2006, 01:22:20 AM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
I agree that the burden of proof lies with the flat Eathers to prove their theory; however, if a round Earther wants to claim that the theory is false, the burden of proof will lie with them.

Flat Earthers have already attempted to prove their theory with Samuel Rowbotham's Earth: Not a Globe. If you want to claim that the FE theory is false, the burden of proof is now on you.


Round Earthers have already succeeded in proving their theory with the help of: Nicolaus Copernicus heliocentric model, Newton's laws of motion and Einstein's theory of relativity. I'm sure the list is actually much longer.
Samuel Rowbotham's ("an eccentric English inventor" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_society) theory was not accepted by the population. Therefore the burden of proof is still on FE'ers, since they were unable to disprove the RE theory and convince anyone that the earth was flat - except a selected few (most present on this website).
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: TheEngineer on November 06, 2006, 01:30:53 AM
How do Newton's laws of motion prove the earth is round?
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: bibicul on November 06, 2006, 01:34:33 AM
They don't. They help prove the earth is round (read more carefully) by providing relationships between the forces acting on a body - gravity comes to mind here.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: TheEngineer on November 06, 2006, 01:38:05 AM
I still don't see how they help show the earth is round.
1.  An object at rest will remain...
2.  F=ma ...
3.  Equal and opposite...

Yep, don't see where they apply.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: bibicul on November 06, 2006, 01:43:05 AM
Well that's because you don't understand the relationship between Newton's third law and gravity.

Quote
Third law
To every action (force applied) there is an equal but opposite reaction (equal force applied in the opposite direction).
Another way of stating Newton's third law, an interaction between two objects, is that, if object A exerts a force on object B, object B will exert the same magnitude force on A, but in the opposite direction.


I am not going to explain that to you, since you should've done your homework in high school. Grade 9, that is...
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: beast on November 06, 2006, 03:12:17 AM
I must have skipped class in grades 9, 10 ,11 and 12 because I don't understand the point you're trying to make at all.

I think you're just making shit up and don't know what you're talking about.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: bibicul on November 06, 2006, 04:43:05 AM
Quote
I must have skipped class in grades 9, 10 ,11 and 12 because I don't understand the point you're trying to make at all.


Well skipping these grades explains why you don't understand the point I'm trying to make. It also explains why you believe the earth is flat.

Quote
I think you're just making shit up and don't know what you're talking about.


However, you've proven time and time again that what you think is irrelevant and therefore can be ignored. You haven't even gone to high school based on the above post.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: beast on November 06, 2006, 05:19:56 AM
I didn't say that I didn't go to high school.  What I meant was if you are right than I mustn't have gone to high school.  I'm sorry that was so complicated for you to understand.

Actually I went to high school and studied physics in all those years.


Since you are unable to back up your claim that Newton's third law of motion applies to gravity, it is clear that you did make that up and you are full of crap as usual.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: bibicul on November 06, 2006, 05:30:36 AM
Quote from: "beast"
I didn't say that I didn't go to high school.  What I meant was if you are right than I mustn't have gone to high school.  I'm sorry that was so complicated for you to understand.

Actually I went to high school and studied physics in all those years.


Since you are unable to back up your claim that Newton's third law of motion applies to gravity, it is clear that you did make that up and you are full of crap as usual.


You are clearly angry. Angry people don't argue very well. Also, you must be angry for a reson. I believe that reason is that you always lose arguments. Furthermore, you should be the last person to talk about "backing up arguments" when you failed to answer any questions directed at you. You believe the earth is flat mate and nobody knows why. What kind of authority do you think you have in telling others whether or not they back their claims up?

Quote
Third law
To every action (force applied) there is an equal but opposite reaction (equal force applied in the opposite direction).
Another way of stating Newton's third law, an interaction between two objects, is that, if object A exerts a force on object B, object B will exert the same magnitude force on A, but in the opposite direction.


Just for the record, at the time when it was published, that law tied directly into gravity like this: walking on the surface of the earth means that you are exerting a force onto it, a force that earth exerts back onto you. On a greater scale, other bodies exert an attractive force onto earth, while at the same time earth exerts an attractive force onto them. That translates into gravity.

Even wikipedia states this under Newton's third law:

Quote
If a basketball hits the ground, the basketball's force on the Earth is the same as Earth's force on the basketball. However, due to the ball's much smaller mass, Newton's second law predicts that its acceleration will be much greater than that of the Earth. Not only do planets accelerate toward stars, but stars also accelerate toward planets.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: beast on November 06, 2006, 05:40:15 AM
Quote
You are clearly angry. Angry people don't argue very well. Also, you must be angry for a reson.


You have the most warped view of people's emotions ever.  I don't know if you know this but a while ago I posted why I post on this forum and the number 1 reason was because it's a hilarious forum.  Don't think for an instant just your presence arguing that the Earth is round doesn't make me laugh at you every time you post.  Also it is spelt "reason."

Quote
I believe that reason is that you always lose arguments.


Show me an argument I have lost.  I can only think of two and I lost them both to fellow FEers...

Quote
Furthermore, you should be the last person to talk about "backing up arguments" when you failed to answer any questions directed at you. You believe the earth is flat mate and nobody knows why. What kind of authority do you think you have in telling others whether or not they back their claims up?
 How many times have I claimed something to be true that I haven't backed up with facts.  The only thing I claim without backing up is that the Earth is flat.  Perhaps you should go read my early posts on this forum and maybe you'll learn something about me.

Quote
Just for the record, at the time when it was published, that law tied directly into gravity like this: walking on the surface of the earth means that you are exerting a force onto it, a force that earth exerts back onto you. On a greater scale, other bodies exert an attractive force onto earth, while at the same time earth exerts an attractive force onto them. That translates into gravity.


This is a completely irrelevant point.

Quote
They don't. They help prove the earth is round (read more carefully) by providing relationships between the forces acting on a body - gravity comes to mind here.


That's what you said.

I understand how it works.  I don't understand how it is remotely evidence that the Earth is round.  Can we measure this force pulling the Earth up towards the basketball?  How do we know it exists?  Because Newton says so?  Don't you know that Newtonian physics don't actually work in the real world?  They just appear to when things work slowly.  At least that's going on RE physics which you apparently know everything about.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: bibicul on November 06, 2006, 05:45:35 AM
Quote
the number 1 reason was because it's a hilarious forum


Your gloomy, angry attitude shows differently.

Quote
Show me an argument I have lost.


For example, all the arguments you've had with me.

Quote
The only thing I claim without backing up is that the Earth is flat.


That is the most important claim that you're trying to make. All the other are rubbish. As you can see, the only important claim you've made is not backed up by anything. How sad...

Quote
This is a completely irrelevant point.


I never though I'd say this but... you are an idiot. That was the answer to your question.

Quote
I don't understand how it is remotely evidence that the Earth is round.


It's not. I said it helped the RE theory, not that it was evidence for a round earth. Read more carefully.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: beast on November 06, 2006, 05:48:19 AM
Surely evidence is anything that helps out a theory.  It can't "help out" RE theory without being evidence for it.

Quote
  1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
   2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
   3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.


From the American Heritage Dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

Look I just backed up what I was saying.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: bibicul on November 06, 2006, 05:50:09 AM
Sure it can. It helps Newton's law of gravitation, which directly helps the RE theory.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: beast on November 06, 2006, 05:54:55 AM
Did you read those definitions of "evidence"

1.A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

You're saying that the third law helps Newton's law of gravity which helps RE theory but that Newton's third law is not helpful in forming a conclusion or judgement that the Earth is round?  How is that not a contradiction?
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: bibicul on November 06, 2006, 05:58:17 AM
Quote
You're saying that the third law helps Newton's law of gravity which helps RE theory but that Newton's third law is not helpful in forming a conclusion or judgement that the Earth is round?


No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that Newton's third law is a generalization. Newton's law of gravity is a particularization - it only refers to gravity. That's how it's taught in physics, too. Therefore both of them form a conclusion that the earth is round.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: beast on November 06, 2006, 06:00:51 AM
But the third law is not evidence for the Earth being round?

It does not in anyway help in making a judgement that the Earth is round?

Or were you wrong in saying that the third law is not evidence that the Earth is round?
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: bibicul on November 06, 2006, 06:09:02 AM
Quote from: "beast"
But the third law is not evidence for the Earth being round?

It does not in anyway help in making a judgement that the Earth is round?

Or were you wrong in saying that the third law is not evidence that the Earth is round?


Newton's third law is a generalization. Newton's law of gravity is a particularization of it - it only refers to gravity. That's how it's taught in physics, too. Therefore both of them form a conclusion that the earth is round.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: joffenz on November 06, 2006, 08:29:21 AM
Quote from: "bibicul"
Quote
the number 1 reason was because it's a hilarious forum


Your gloomy, angry attitude shows differently.


I doubt it very much. I myself joined these forums mainly for the humour value as well and I can safely say I find your posts amusing.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: BOGWarrior89 on November 06, 2006, 08:45:54 AM
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
Quote from: "bibicul"
Quote
the number 1 reason was because it's a hilarious forum


Your gloomy, angry attitude shows differently.


I doubt it very much. I myself joined these forums mainly for the humour value as well and I can safely say I find your posts amusing.


No you can't.  You have no proof that you laughed.  For all we know, you could be lying to us.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: jaybird39 on November 06, 2006, 10:08:55 AM
The burden of proof lies in the argument that does not conform to the presumed norm in tangible facts. In other words, if it was commonly assumed that the earth was flat, the Spherical earth proponents would have the burden of proof.

This is not the case. The Flat Earth society made a claim that is not in conformity with what the majority of the world's population knows, believes, and is taught to be fact.

Therefore any claim other than the earth is spherical requires tangible and credible evidence that cannot be refuted with sane and competent logical deduction.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: jaybird39 on November 06, 2006, 10:14:48 AM
Only in belief systems which have absolutely no tangible asset, does the burden of proof fall on the claimant for the positive affirmation of such belief.

In other words, Religion has the burden of proof when it claims to be the True religion, whereas the non believer has no reason to assert his posistion. This is because the involvement of said religion assures participation, power base, free advertisement, and probable monetary income. Whereas the non believer has no motivation to prove his point, other than in a defense.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: phaseshifter on November 06, 2006, 10:29:51 AM
Quote from: "beast"
But the third law is not evidence for the Earth being round?

It does not in anyway help in making a judgement that the Earth is round?

Or were you wrong in saying that the third law is not evidence that the Earth is round?


Didn't you read what he just wrote? You're ridiculising yourself here.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: Erasmus on November 06, 2006, 12:08:05 PM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Didn't you read what he just wrote? You're ridiculising yourself here.


The bit about the third law being a generalization and the law of gravity being a particularization?  Yeah, I don't see how that supports the conclusion that the Earth is round any more than it supports the conclusion that I can walk on walls.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: BOGWarrior89 on November 06, 2006, 03:43:53 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Didn't you read what he just wrote? You're ridiculising yourself here.


The bit about the third law being a generalization and the law of gravity being a particularization?  Yeah, I don't see how that supports the conclusion that the Earth is round any more than it supports the conclusion that I can walk on walls.


You can walk on walls?
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: beast on November 06, 2006, 05:10:23 PM
Quote from: "bibicul"

Newton's third law is a generalization. Newton's law of gravity is a particularization of it - it only refers to gravity. That's how it's taught in physics, too. Therefore both of them form a conclusion that the earth is round.


You are clearly horny.  Horny people don't argue very well.  Also, you must be horny for a reason.  I believe that reason is because you like to think of yourself as a master debater.  Read the definition of "evidence" again.  Read what you just wrote.  Read your comment that you don't think Newton's third law is not evidence for the shape of the Earth.  Explain how what you've said, combined with the dictionary definition of "evidence" is not a contradiction.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: phaseshifter on November 06, 2006, 07:17:03 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Didn't you read what he just wrote? You're ridiculising yourself here.


The bit about the third law being a generalization and the law of gravity being a particularization?  Yeah, I don't see how that supports the conclusion that the Earth is round any more than it supports the conclusion that I can walk on walls.


If you don't see how it does then look it up. Gravity is what creates planets, as opposed to a universe filled with interstallar dust.

Quote from: "bibicul"

 Therefore both of them form a conclusion that the earth is round.


Quote from: "beast"
But the third law is not evidence for the Earth being round?

It does not in anyway help in making a judgement that the Earth is round?

Or were you wrong in saying that the third law is not evidence that the Earth is round?


Beast seems to have some trouble with reading.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: Erasmus on November 06, 2006, 07:29:02 PM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
If you don't see how it does then look it up.


OR you could actually try defending your views yourself.  We're asking where the roundness comes from the Third Law and gravity.  If you can't back that up, just admit it; don't just brush us aside with your "go look it up" nonsense.  Give us an explicit reference if you want us to "look it up".
Title: Re: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: Mephistopheles on November 06, 2006, 07:35:09 PM
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"


To further EnragedPenguin's argument, WE could be the ones that are in denial.  (FYI: Me=RoundEarther)


This may not mean much, but you win the poster of the month award for this.

Unofficially, of course.

We need more people thinking like that.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: phaseshifter on November 06, 2006, 07:45:38 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
If you don't see how it does then look it up.


OR you could actually try defending your views yourself.  We're asking where the roundness comes from the Third Law and gravity.  If you can't back that up, just admit it; don't just brush us aside with your "go look it up" nonsense.  Give us an explicit reference if you want us to "look it up".


You conveniently did not quote the 2nd sentence.

And why am I more credible than a source of information you could find on your own all of a sudden?
Title: Re: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: BOGWarrior89 on November 06, 2006, 07:56:15 PM
Quote from: "Mephistopheles"
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"


To further EnragedPenguin's argument, WE could be the ones that are in denial.  (FYI: Me=RoundEarther)


This may not mean much, but you win the poster of the month award for this.

Unofficially, of course.

We need more people thinking like that.


I'm going to take the time to celebrate ... stop!
KIRBY TIME!
(> o.o )>  <( o.o )>  ^( o.o )v  v( o.o )^  <( o.o )>  <( o.o <)
Title: Re: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: Erasmus on November 06, 2006, 11:55:34 PM
Quote from: "Mephistopheles"
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"


To further EnragedPenguin's argument, WE could be the ones that are in denial.  (FYI: Me=RoundEarther)


This may not mean much, but you win the poster of the month award for this.

Unofficially, of course.

We need more people thinking like that.


I would second that.... also unofficially, of course ;)
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: bibicul on November 07, 2006, 05:40:14 AM
Quote from: "beast"
Quote from: "bibicul"

Newton's third law is a generalization. Newton's law of gravity is a particularization of it - it only refers to gravity. That's how it's taught in physics, too. Therefore both of them form a conclusion that the earth is round.


You are clearly horny.  Horny people don't argue very well.  Also, you must be horny for a reason.  I believe that reason is because you like to think of yourself as a master debater.  Read the definition of "evidence" again.  Read what you just wrote.  Read your comment that you don't think Newton's third law is not evidence for the shape of the Earth.  Explain how what you've said, combined with the dictionary definition of "evidence" is not a contradiction.


Explain what? Are you dysfunctional beast? You need basic logic explained to you? Or are you just horny and trying to make it seem like other people have similar "problems" to yours? I'd go for the last choice, which I pity you for. Try and get some ass mate. If you can...

Since Newton's theory of gravitation is a particularization of his 3rd law, and since a direct result of gravitation is "the very existence of the Earth, the Sun, and other celestial bodies; without it, matter would not have coalesced into these (ROUND!!!) bodies and life as we know it would not exist" - and we "know" life to be taking place on a round earth, at least on wikipedia, where this quote is taken from (ironically, under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_theory_of_gravitation), how can you not understand that:
- if we define A to be Newton's third law;
-  "----------"  B to be Newton's theory of gravitation;
-  "----------"  C to be the round earth
then clearly since B is a particular case of A, and B explains (or "accounts for", or whatever word you want to pick so we don't get stuck in form anymore - since that's all your mind has the power to perceive) C, then there is a connection between A and C THROUGH B, and therefore the two (A and C) are interconnected themselves. It's not rocket science.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: bibicul on November 07, 2006, 05:57:18 AM
Lol. He uses "conspiracy" tools as well - wikipedia, dictionary.com, thesaurus.com and many, many other websites which he cites in his statements. Basically, if they were all part of the conspiracy then RE'ers should not use them and rather "re-prove" (sorry for that term) everything that "is" all over again. They obviously can't do that.  :D
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: bibicul on November 07, 2006, 06:23:13 AM
He's not signed in yet. Don't worry, he'll reply.
Title: THe burden of proof is on FE's
Post by: phaseshifter on November 07, 2006, 06:27:17 AM
Like I said before, Beast is special.