1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...

« on: July 25, 2012, 12:44:35 PM »

One of my problems with Barthel is that his theory necessarily postulates a fourth dimension or sorts, which is the dimension in which the other three curve. I consider this an unacceptable presumption even worse than gravity and Newton's laws.

No, Barthel's theory does not postulate "a fourth dimension or sorts, which is the dimension in which the other three curve." It correctly states that space is three-dimensional, yet a closed totality, which necessarily follows from its cyclical nature, which is logically necessary. You are the one who presupposes Euclidean infinity geometry to be correct, which is logically contradictory. How about first reading what Barthel actually wrote before misrepresenting his theory?

You completely missed my point. Regardless of what geometry you use, the laws of mathematics still apply. And it is obvious to me that if something is curved, it is curved in a space. Disagreeing with this obvious and logical idea is simple theoretical spherical gibberish.

No, I did not completely miss the point, and I'm afraid the gibberish is yours. Which laws of mathematics are you talking about? Euclidean geometry laws founded on the wrong parallel axiom perhaps? It has been sufficiently demonstrated in this thread why the Euclidean parallel axiom (there are two straight lines in a plane, which never intersect, the so-called parallels) is wrong and must be replaced with the Riemannian one (any two straight lines in a plane always have two intersection points 180° apart). The only thing that might be argued about is the question how big this space constant of 180° is. A lot of arguments point to the size of that constant being roughly 20000 km, i.e. half of the Earth's circumference. Again, this is exactly the point, that space is closed without being curved. Curvature can only apply to objects or light within space. If space itself were curved you could lay a tangent to it, which would then be outside that "space". The only problem with the necessity of space being closed without being curved is, as was repeatedly said, the inability of the human mind to visualize, imagine the totality at once. But it can be thought, and what's more, it is inevitable, logically compelling.

Lactantius

This doesn't make any sense. Only a ridiculous "theoretical" approach can produce such a nonsensical result. Two parallel lines don't intersect, and that's obvious. This makes about as much sense as "gravity." The problem with all of these "theories" is the idea inherent in them that something which explains some results can be true, even though it doesn't make any logical sense.

Before jabbering on that things you don't (want to) understand allegedly don't make any logical sense, please go to page 6 of this thread where the proof (the persisting intersection point of a rotating straight with another straight line) is presented that there are no two straight lines in a plane which infinitely keep equal distance, there are no so-called parallels, which should better be named co-verticals at a certain point. You either have not studied what has been presented in this thread or, of course, you are a troll also. Or, third possibility, you simply don't get it, but then I can't help you.

Lactantius

Here's another possibility; you're wrong. Woah, never thought of that?

I saw your proof. It makes no sense and is based on theoretical conjecture of the sort that is in complete defiance of the zeitetic process. Since I am a form adherent to said process, I find your position inherently flawed and your attitude elitist and mind-blowingly ignorant and inflexible. You refuse to even consider the possibility that you're wrong, which makes you susceptible to such outrageously unscientific "theories."

Hypocrite much?

If Barthel's theory is wrong then the whole idea of a flat Earth is wrong and incredibly silly, and you perfectly well know that. There is a reason no one has ever found an edge of the world or an infinite frozen wasteland beyond the imaginary antarctic ice wall. Applying Occam's Razor the simplest reason is: they don't exist. Are you yourself a Flat Earth believer? If so, which version do you adhere to, the disk or the infinite plane? Do you seriously, honestly believe any of those two?
In Barthel's time there were several mathematicians who admitted that his theory was geometrically possible and consistent, you (and practically the whole world) not knowing about that or Barthel's works in general doesn't change that. The zetetic method is fine and well, but it is not everything, and most of all it also depends on a priori assumptions, in this case, which geometrical axiom to choose. BTW, if you could read Barthel's works you would see that also as a philosopher he far surpassed Rowbotham et al.
Anyway, to people like you there is only one advice: Be careful not to fall off the edge of the world resp. not to get lost in the vast ice desert beyond the wall ...

Lactantius

Once again, a non-adherent uses  personal insults to convey an argument. I think your position is silly, and I wish you realized that it is. Occam's razor has nothing to do with this, although it would definitely enliminate your theory, which actually postulates that the world is some sort of multi-dimensional theoretical geometry. Flat earth makes sense to anyone who looks out his window. It is a perfectly coherent theory, unlike your theoretical nonsense. I believe in a flat earth disk, which is the only historical version of flat earth adherence your theory makes no sense and involves some mathematical backflips in order to render itself obscure enough to avoid being exposed as a nonsensical and fake theory, much like gravity.

As for your claims about Barthel's philosophy, it is not even on the same level of thinking as Parallax's. Rowbotham was a genius for understanding that reality is reality, and nothing more. That is the most important realization in scientific history. Barthel not only fails to see this, but creates an even more convoluted model than round earth, which falls flat and has never been thought of as more than quackery, by anyone.

My advice to yyou: don't make an argument personal. You sound like a discontetnted child, shouting and refusing to acknowledge anyone but himself.  Your post reveals an immature mind not ready for zetetic enlightenment. Read Rowbotham's work a little, and open your mind a lot, then maybe you'll be able to lay out a normal argument, not one laced with childish inability to think.

Pyriew come on, are you really so blind to your own involvement in making arguments personal? I have browsed through your posts and can give you multiple examples of when you have, not only made exceedingly ad-hominem statements dripping with vindictiveness ( see my interjection above for just one instance), but also, taking what people say personally, when in fact no such implication exists in the statement, if you wish to get rid of personal attacks don't dish out in turn, and don't point it out, ignore it. if you wish to make personal attacks then don't begrudge anyone else doing it either.

oh, and before you start directing my own statement at me, I actually have no problem with personal statements or arguments, it makes the disccussion more fun (as you can probably tell by a few of our altercations). I am just pointing out your hypocrisy.

I'll take your word for it, since you're the expert on personal insults and hypocrisy.

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Easy way out answers

« on: July 25, 2012, 12:43:03 PM »

I was inquiring as to the validity of my assumption. I was quite right it seems.

And I was amazed by how stupid you assumptions were. You were quite dumb, it seems.

Oh, dear. I think I offended someone.

I was gonna say that. 

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Easy way out answers

« on: July 24, 2012, 09:28:21 PM »

I was inquiring as to the validity of my assumption. I was quite right it seems.

And I was amazed by how stupid you assumptions were. You were quite dumb, it seems.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please Explain the Earth's "Acceleration"

« on: July 24, 2012, 09:23:59 PM »

Just because you don't like gravity doesn't mean it's not there. A lot of people strive to know the "why" and "how." No one made up a rule called gravity. The gave a force that clearly exists a name, and figured out what it's effects are on various materials of various density and/or mass. This force is what you call "falling down." I call it gravity, because that's the name that is agreed upon by scientists around the world, and it's explanation goes beyond "just because," as opposed to "it falls because it has weight." I did not say things with mass curve space time. I said I don't know if they do. No one does. There's mathematics to support both the curved space-time theory and the graviton theory. The math is beyond my current understand (aside from small pieces of it). But it is there nonetheless. Regardless. There is some force that pulls mass towards mass. It has been named gravity. No one made it more complicated, it was complicated to begin with. The explanation has gotten more complicated because people try to figure out why something happens. Like me, they can't settle for "because it does."

And how is this not a "just because" situation? No, the math is not self-evident. There are even alternative theories of gravity today in the scientific community. (MOG, TeVeS, and a few more, though some have been discounted recently.)

Again, this is because people strive to know why. The theory is not complete, as we know gravity is there, but we don't know quite how it does what it does. This is where graviton-gravity theory and bent space-time gravity theory come from. The desire to know why. If we know why, we can figure out how to either create it for ourselves, or cancel out it's effects (anti-gravity). I don't know about those theories, perhaps you can provide some links? I am always interested to learn. But you cannot discount the fact that there is, in fact, some force that works to keep you stuck on the surface of this world, unless you have a sufficient force to propel you away.

You decided to call it a force, I think we were perfectly fine when it wasn't a force. You have to realize that the drive here isn't to explain unknowns; the reason why gravity theory has become what it is today is that scientists have decided to generalize ideas based on what they know. Scientists know that you will never be able to explain the ultimate "why?" because you can always ask why. Scientists simply make assumptions about things based on the way other things work, and inductively reason their way to a theory. This is what zetetic philosophy discredits, and with good reason. (Look at string theory, the process around it is a complete contradiction to the scientific method, but it's the only thing theoretical physicists have been doing for twenty years, just because it gives ample ground for theory. Scientists stop seeking the truth once they get a theory-boner and think they're the next Einstein.)

This is not true of ALL scientists though. I do not think Newton was one of these men. Nor do I think Einstein was one of these men. I do not agree with string theory. It sounds very, very far out there. Like you said, there's nothing behind it. It can't even rightly be called a theory. It's more like "String Guess," or "String Hypothesis." Plus, it was always a force. Just because we didn't call it that, doesn't mean that wasn't it. I can call the air a "fluid medium made up of mostly nitrogen, with small parts of oxygen, carbon-dioxide, and other trace elements" if I want. I just gave it a name based on it's composition. It's still air. It was what it was before people were able to accurately explain it. Same with gravity. It was still a force. We just didn't understand what was going on, and the coined term "gravity" and the equations and explanations that go along with it are an attempt at understanding it. Is there really anything wrong with trying to figure out why things happen? I never said we'd know the "ultimate why," whatever that is. I just think that it only makes sense to wonder and explore, and there's nothing wrong with doing that, and telling people what you found. If you don't believe it, that's your own business. But you and I seem to both agree that for some reason, things fall down. I call it a force. You call it "because." It seems that that is where it will stay.

Newton was an alchemist. Seriously. He was also one of the nastiest people ever to do science, and had no problem ruining other careers to further his own. Einstein was completely self-absorbed and would never admit that he was wrong (barring one famous admission regarding the cosmological constant). Neither of this men was the legendary truth-seeker people make them out to be. (My great uncle personally knew both Oppenheimer and Einstein, and he told me that  at times "Oppie" was literally ready to kill Einstein for being "exceedingly and unreasonably stubborn," or something like that.)

Now, you keep repeating your argument about gravity, but the fact is, no matter how much more intricate and detailed you make the theory, you can never take out the a priori argument that renders it useless. This is why there is no need for such new interpretations while the old ones still work.

old theories always work if you narrow it down to the frontiers that it was used for before. Newton's theory works, but not for things that are exceedingly heavy, or moving at highspeeds, hence SR/GR. You yourself can use the old model of "it falls down because it's heavy" for everyday assumptions (it will work exceedingly well) but try using that to explain the movements and physical properties of certain celestial objects and you'll see that the tool "it falls down because its heavy" is woefully inadequate.

Try to see beyond your own modest exploration of the world and you'll see that people need more sophisticated solutions based on rationality, evidence and (in some very rare cases) precedence, also known as "Rules of Thumb". Gravity might seem to you to be an ad hoc solution to an already explained phenomena, but in actual fact that phenomena involves more than just "falling down".

The question boils down to how far you are willing to take theory, and the zetetic process stresses limiting theory as much as possible. This is why I refuse to accept gravitational theory.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: Easy way out answers

« on: July 24, 2012, 04:51:30 PM »

Haha, I smell a troll.

Apparently, the sense of smell is the only sense you make use of.  Indeed, it is the only sense you make, as well.

You didn't understand my post?

Sorry if that went over your head.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please Explain the Earth's "Acceleration"

« on: July 24, 2012, 02:10:24 PM »

When exactly was my argument rendered useless?

Einstein was a kraut (as am I, don't ban me for the racial slur), his stubbornness was to be expected. And I can say that my great uncle knew Einstein as well, that may or may not be true, and unless you can prove it to me, it seems quite far fetched. A lot of people have claimed to know the smartest or most famous men (and women), I hear it all the time from all kinds of people. Like I said, our discussion is at a stand still. Neither of us is going to bend to the other. It is common knowledge among people who know of the topic, that Oppenheimer and Einstein worked together on the Manhattan Project, and were constantly at odds. I learned that when I did my fifth grade science project on Nuclear Reactions.

You did not reply to my argument. You took a tiny aside in my post, questioned my honesty, and failed to respond intelligently to the arguments I forwarded.

Now, Einstein and Oppenheimer did NOT work together on the Manhattan project. Einstein never worked on the atomic bomb, regardless of what you heard in your childhood. The disagreement between Oppenheimer and Einstein was regarding QUANTUM MECHANICS and Einstein's rigid opinion regarding QE. Later, after Oppenheimer's security clearance was revoked, he moved more into the realm of public intellectual, which once again pitted him against Einstein, who was a loner, distrusted the masses, and rejected concensus when it disagreed with his views. Whatever you learned in school was false, but that is not as surprising as the fact that you base your arguments on things you learned in fifth grade.

As for your aspersions regarding my great uncle, fuck you and your lack of common decency. I didn't even bring that in as proof, just as an interesting little anecdote. Learn to debate like a person, not like a middle-schooler with something to prove.

7

Flat Earth General / Re: Curved or not ?

« on: July 24, 2012, 11:03:53 AM »

Ok so I'm done with this forum, you can't face the truth
You always dodge the questions and you are insincere
I understand the fact you question some scientifical facts, and I really salute you for the initiative, but you just are unable to answer simple questions
this proves me that you don't want to truly debate the question and you are narrow-minded to your own theorys

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. You always say "the earth is flat cause when i look over my window it seems to be flat"
it's like saying "I turn on my tv, i see stupid people, so everyone outside is stupid".
but chill guys I know that you are always right and i'm be wrong because i'm dumbed down by mass medias !
Best regards

Bye!

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please Explain the Earth's "Acceleration"

« on: July 24, 2012, 11:01:53 AM »

Just because you don't like gravity doesn't mean it's not there. A lot of people strive to know the "why" and "how." No one made up a rule called gravity. The gave a force that clearly exists a name, and figured out what it's effects are on various materials of various density and/or mass. This force is what you call "falling down." I call it gravity, because that's the name that is agreed upon by scientists around the world, and it's explanation goes beyond "just because," as opposed to "it falls because it has weight." I did not say things with mass curve space time. I said I don't know if they do. No one does. There's mathematics to support both the curved space-time theory and the graviton theory. The math is beyond my current understand (aside from small pieces of it). But it is there nonetheless. Regardless. There is some force that pulls mass towards mass. It has been named gravity. No one made it more complicated, it was complicated to begin with. The explanation has gotten more complicated because people try to figure out why something happens. Like me, they can't settle for "because it does."

And how is this not a "just because" situation? No, the math is not self-evident. There are even alternative theories of gravity today in the scientific community. (MOG, TeVeS, and a few more, though some have been discounted recently.)

Again, this is because people strive to know why. The theory is not complete, as we know gravity is there, but we don't know quite how it does what it does. This is where graviton-gravity theory and bent space-time gravity theory come from. The desire to know why. If we know why, we can figure out how to either create it for ourselves, or cancel out it's effects (anti-gravity). I don't know about those theories, perhaps you can provide some links? I am always interested to learn. But you cannot discount the fact that there is, in fact, some force that works to keep you stuck on the surface of this world, unless you have a sufficient force to propel you away.

You decided to call it a force, I think we were perfectly fine when it wasn't a force. You have to realize that the drive here isn't to explain unknowns; the reason why gravity theory has become what it is today is that scientists have decided to generalize ideas based on what they know. Scientists know that you will never be able to explain the ultimate "why?" because you can always ask why. Scientists simply make assumptions about things based on the way other things work, and inductively reason their way to a theory. This is what zetetic philosophy discredits, and with good reason. (Look at string theory, the process around it is a complete contradiction to the scientific method, but it's the only thing theoretical physicists have been doing for twenty years, just because it gives ample ground for theory. Scientists stop seeking the truth once they get a theory-boner and think they're the next Einstein.)

This is not true of ALL scientists though. I do not think Newton was one of these men. Nor do I think Einstein was one of these men. I do not agree with string theory. It sounds very, very far out there. Like you said, there's nothing behind it. It can't even rightly be called a theory. It's more like "String Guess," or "String Hypothesis." Plus, it was always a force. Just because we didn't call it that, doesn't mean that wasn't it. I can call the air a "fluid medium made up of mostly nitrogen, with small parts of oxygen, carbon-dioxide, and other trace elements" if I want. I just gave it a name based on it's composition. It's still air. It was what it was before people were able to accurately explain it. Same with gravity. It was still a force. We just didn't understand what was going on, and the coined term "gravity" and the equations and explanations that go along with it are an attempt at understanding it. Is there really anything wrong with trying to figure out why things happen? I never said we'd know the "ultimate why," whatever that is. I just think that it only makes sense to wonder and explore, and there's nothing wrong with doing that, and telling people what you found. If you don't believe it, that's your own business. But you and I seem to both agree that for some reason, things fall down. I call it a force. You call it "because." It seems that that is where it will stay.

Newton was an alchemist. Seriously. He was also one of the nastiest people ever to do science, and had no problem ruining other careers to further his own. Einstein was completely self-absorbed and would never admit that he was wrong (barring one famous admission regarding the cosmological constant). Neither of this men was the legendary truth-seeker people make them out to be. (My great uncle personally knew both Oppenheimer and Einstein, and he told me that  at times "Oppie" was literally ready to kill Einstein for being "exceedingly and unreasonably stubborn," or something like that.)

Now, you keep repeating your argument about gravity, but the fact is, no matter how much more intricate and detailed you make the theory, you can never take out the a priori argument that renders it useless. This is why there is no need for such new interpretations while the old ones still work.

9

The Lounge / Re: I think I'm dying

« on: July 24, 2012, 10:49:57 AM »

My new syndrome (I'm gonna call it 'Thorkingtons' as I'm the first person ever to have this rare and dangerous affliction) is recent. I've only had it a few months.

Maybe it just recently flared up? There's always hope.

10

The Lounge / Re: I think I'm dying

« on: July 24, 2012, 10:42:32 AM »

I haven't been that lucky.

Born with it?

11

The Lounge / Re: I think I'm dying

« on: July 24, 2012, 10:39:56 AM »

Herpes.

12

Flat Earth General / Re: Curved or not ?

« on: July 24, 2012, 10:36:22 AM »

just answer MY question, just be honnest

just answer MY question, just be honnest

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please Explain the Earth's "Acceleration"

« on: July 24, 2012, 10:33:16 AM »

Just because you don't like gravity doesn't mean it's not there. A lot of people strive to know the "why" and "how." No one made up a rule called gravity. The gave a force that clearly exists a name, and figured out what it's effects are on various materials of various density and/or mass. This force is what you call "falling down." I call it gravity, because that's the name that is agreed upon by scientists around the world, and it's explanation goes beyond "just because," as opposed to "it falls because it has weight." I did not say things with mass curve space time. I said I don't know if they do. No one does. There's mathematics to support both the curved space-time theory and the graviton theory. The math is beyond my current understand (aside from small pieces of it). But it is there nonetheless. Regardless. There is some force that pulls mass towards mass. It has been named gravity. No one made it more complicated, it was complicated to begin with. The explanation has gotten more complicated because people try to figure out why something happens. Like me, they can't settle for "because it does."

And how is this not a "just because" situation? No, the math is not self-evident. There are even alternative theories of gravity today in the scientific community. (MOG, TeVeS, and a few more, though some have been discounted recently.)

Again, this is because people strive to know why. The theory is not complete, as we know gravity is there, but we don't know quite how it does what it does. This is where graviton-gravity theory and bent space-time gravity theory come from. The desire to know why. If we know why, we can figure out how to either create it for ourselves, or cancel out it's effects (anti-gravity). I don't know about those theories, perhaps you can provide some links? I am always interested to learn. But you cannot discount the fact that there is, in fact, some force that works to keep you stuck on the surface of this world, unless you have a sufficient force to propel you away.

You decided to call it a force, I think we were perfectly fine when it wasn't a force. You have to realize that the drive here isn't to explain unknowns; the reason why gravity theory has become what it is today is that scientists have decided to generalize ideas based on what they know. Scientists know that you will never be able to explain the ultimate "why?" because you can always ask why. Scientists simply make assumptions about things based on the way other things work, and inductively reason their way to a theory. This is what zetetic philosophy discredits, and with good reason. (Look at string theory, the process around it is a complete contradiction to the scientific method, but it's the only thing theoretical physicists have been doing for twenty years, just because it gives ample ground for theory. Scientists stop seeking the truth once they get a theory-boner and think they're the next Einstein.)

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please Explain the Earth's "Acceleration"

« on: July 24, 2012, 10:19:04 AM »

Just because you don't like gravity doesn't mean it's not there. A lot of people strive to know the "why" and "how." No one made up a rule called gravity. The gave a force that clearly exists a name, and figured out what it's effects are on various materials of various density and/or mass. This force is what you call "falling down." I call it gravity, because that's the name that is agreed upon by scientists around the world, and it's explanation goes beyond "just because," as opposed to "it falls because it has weight." I did not say things with mass curve space time. I said I don't know if they do. No one does. There's mathematics to support both the curved space-time theory and the graviton theory. The math is beyond my current understand (aside from small pieces of it). But it is there nonetheless. Regardless. There is some force that pulls mass towards mass. It has been named gravity. No one made it more complicated, it was complicated to begin with. The explanation has gotten more complicated because people try to figure out why something happens. Like me, they can't settle for "because it does."

And how is this not a "just because" situation? No, the math is not self-evident. There are even alternative theories of gravity today in the scientific community. (MOG, TeVeS, and a few more, though some have been discounted recently.)

15

Flat Earth General / Re: Curved or not ?

« on: July 24, 2012, 10:00:23 AM »

Flat or not? Be honest.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please Explain the Earth's "Acceleration"

« on: July 24, 2012, 09:52:04 AM »

Gravity gives objects their weight! Gravity is a term used to explain WHY objects have weight. It is an attraction between massive things. If there was no gravity, there would be no magnetism, garygreen, because the particles would have never formed to propagate electric and magnetic fields. Just because people couldn't explain weight before, doesn't mean the explanation we have now is a lie. That's completely irrational. Read a science book. You obviously know nothing about it. Do experiments for yourself, instead of putting on your blinders and saying that it's not there.

You are grossly misrepresenting the situation, no offense meant to you. It's not true to say that people didn't know what it was before Newton and Einstein. People simply had a completely different understanding of weight. Indeed, it was the correct understanding. Something which has weight goes down; people have always understood this without resorting to modern theory. Even Newton had no reason to assume that gravity was created by something, which is what Einstein strove to do. Indeed, even Einstein did not see a need for the modern day graviton field theory. If you check his later notes, he even attempts to generalize gravity in an entirely different direction, which was one of the ways he attempted to find a unifying theory. But he never resorted to what every scientist today insists is a logical must, for no reason other than the gut feeling of some pompous academics.

After people get an idea into their head, they rarely ever look back and change it, regardless of how much they have strayed from what originally made them appreciate the idea.

Gravity is the reason WHY it goes "down." I have said this and explained it several times. I don't know whether gravity comes from an unfound "graviton," or whether it comes from a bend in space-time. I just know it's quite obviously there. Something has to make things stick here. What you're saying is "they fall because they have weight." Well why, and how, do they have weight? That's gravity. Not just, "we stay down because we do." That's not good enough. Even a child can tell you that. I know, I have two. They always ask "but why?"

And making up a rule called gravity helps HOW?

Before: things with weight go down for some reason.

Now: things with mass curve space-time for some reason.

I can also ask why ad infinitum, what gives you the right to decide when to stop and assume that you have the ultimate reason. Making gravity more complicated does not make it more causally reasonable. At some point you have to end up with a "just because," and I think you've gone too far already when you've reached Newton.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Logical Inconsistency

« on: July 23, 2012, 08:34:45 PM »

I think The Ice Wall Ninja and Pyriew are the same person, trying to corroborate himself.

That's a disgusting lie and a pathetic attempt to escape a problem. I have nothing to do with that other poster, and I don't even think he believes in flat earth. Once again, a round earther makes a false claim he can't prove in order to try and defend his backwards manner of reasoning. I am shocked that you people would result to personal claims every time you lose an argument. Have some decency, or leave.

Well, if you look back, the only "arguing" I did asked you to provide a citation for saying insects understood things. I was simply implying something from observing your seemingly identical argument style and the fact that you both effectively say "it's a hoax because I don't want it to be there."

If you want to criticize me, do it. Don't bunch me in with a couple of other people and lable the box "those guys." Just becuase two people sound alike, doesn't mean that they are the same person. That is a very narrow-minded way of looking at things. Worse, by doing this you are stripping someone of his individuality and the individuality of his argument, which is a dastardly act that is constantly made by the majority in an attempt to legitimize themselves and their cause.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please Explain the Earth's "Acceleration"

« on: July 23, 2012, 08:28:53 PM »

Gravity gives objects their weight! Gravity is a term used to explain WHY objects have weight. It is an attraction between massive things. If there was no gravity, there would be no magnetism, garygreen, because the particles would have never formed to propagate electric and magnetic fields. Just because people couldn't explain weight before, doesn't mean the explanation we have now is a lie. That's completely irrational. Read a science book. You obviously know nothing about it. Do experiments for yourself, instead of putting on your blinders and saying that it's not there.

You are grossly misrepresenting the situation, no offense meant to you. It's not true to say that people didn't know what it was before Newton and Einstein. People simply had a completely different understanding of weight. Indeed, it was the correct understanding. Something which has weight goes down; people have always understood this without resorting to modern theory. Even Newton had no reason to assume that gravity was created by something, which is what Einstein strove to do. Indeed, even Einstein did not see a need for the modern day graviton field theory. If you check his later notes, he even attempts to generalize gravity in an entirely different direction, which was one of the ways he attempted to find a unifying theory. But he never resorted to what every scientist today insists is a logical must, for no reason other than the gut feeling of some pompous academics.

After people get an idea into their head, they rarely ever look back and change it, regardless of how much they have strayed from what originally made them appreciate the idea.

19

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Zoos

« on: July 23, 2012, 08:18:09 PM »

Please drop the topic of slavery. Zoos do not have their animals go out and pick cotton all day. The only time a zoo animals works is when they do demonstrations with the larger intelligent animals. Demonstration = Food. If you have a problem with that, well you have a problem with society itself, since we all work for food in one way or another.

You're correct, we all generally work for our existence. However, we have the right to choose how we would like to work and how we would like to live. Zoo animals, and slaves, do not have this right. They are forced to live in a specific environment and work (keeping in mind that they are working whenever people watch them) in a specific way. I am not claiming that this is moral or immoral, I am just noting the similarity.

Oranges have no choice whether they are juiced, eaten plain, or used for orange soda.

You really think there are oranges in orange soda?

You've never had pellegrinos?  Were not talking about sunkist here.

Probably tastes horrible. Can't imagine soda without at least seventeen additional ingrediants. It's unnatural.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...

« on: July 23, 2012, 08:15:16 PM »

One of my problems with Barthel is that his theory necessarily postulates a fourth dimension or sorts, which is the dimension in which the other three curve. I consider this an unacceptable presumption even worse than gravity and Newton's laws.

No, Barthel's theory does not postulate "a fourth dimension or sorts, which is the dimension in which the other three curve." It correctly states that space is three-dimensional, yet a closed totality, which necessarily follows from its cyclical nature, which is logically necessary. You are the one who presupposes Euclidean infinity geometry to be correct, which is logically contradictory. How about first reading what Barthel actually wrote before misrepresenting his theory?

You completely missed my point. Regardless of what geometry you use, the laws of mathematics still apply. And it is obvious to me that if something is curved, it is curved in a space. Disagreeing with this obvious and logical idea is simple theoretical spherical gibberish.

No, I did not completely miss the point, and I'm afraid the gibberish is yours. Which laws of mathematics are you talking about? Euclidean geometry laws founded on the wrong parallel axiom perhaps? It has been sufficiently demonstrated in this thread why the Euclidean parallel axiom (there are two straight lines in a plane, which never intersect, the so-called parallels) is wrong and must be replaced with the Riemannian one (any two straight lines in a plane always have two intersection points 180° apart). The only thing that might be argued about is the question how big this space constant of 180° is. A lot of arguments point to the size of that constant being roughly 20000 km, i.e. half of the Earth's circumference. Again, this is exactly the point, that space is closed without being curved. Curvature can only apply to objects or light within space. If space itself were curved you could lay a tangent to it, which would then be outside that "space". The only problem with the necessity of space being closed without being curved is, as was repeatedly said, the inability of the human mind to visualize, imagine the totality at once. But it can be thought, and what's more, it is inevitable, logically compelling.

Lactantius

This doesn't make any sense. Only a ridiculous "theoretical" approach can produce such a nonsensical result. Two parallel lines don't intersect, and that's obvious. This makes about as much sense as "gravity." The problem with all of these "theories" is the idea inherent in them that something which explains some results can be true, even though it doesn't make any logical sense.

Before jabbering on that things you don't (want to) understand allegedly don't make any logical sense, please go to page 6 of this thread where the proof (the persisting intersection point of a rotating straight with another straight line) is presented that there are no two straight lines in a plane which infinitely keep equal distance, there are no so-called parallels, which should better be named co-verticals at a certain point. You either have not studied what has been presented in this thread or, of course, you are a troll also. Or, third possibility, you simply don't get it, but then I can't help you.

Lactantius

Here's another possibility; you're wrong. Woah, never thought of that?

I saw your proof. It makes no sense and is based on theoretical conjecture of the sort that is in complete defiance of the zeitetic process. Since I am a form adherent to said process, I find your position inherently flawed and your attitude elitist and mind-blowingly ignorant and inflexible. You refuse to even consider the possibility that you're wrong, which makes you susceptible to such outrageously unscientific "theories."

If Barthel's theory is wrong then the whole idea of a flat Earth is wrong and incredibly silly, and you perfectly well know that. There is a reason no one has ever found an edge of the world or an infinite frozen wasteland beyond the imaginary antarctic ice wall. Applying Occam's Razor the simplest reason is: they don't exist. Are you yourself a Flat Earth believer? If so, which version do you adhere to, the disk or the infinite plane? Do you seriously, honestly believe any of those two?
In Barthel's time there were several mathematicians who admitted that his theory was geometrically possible and consistent, you (and practically the whole world) not knowing about that or Barthel's works in general doesn't change that. The zetetic method is fine and well, but it is not everything, and most of all it also depends on a priori assumptions, in this case, which geometrical axiom to choose. BTW, if you could read Barthel's works you would see that also as a philosopher he far surpassed Rowbotham et al.
Anyway, to people like you there is only one advice: Be careful not to fall off the edge of the world resp. not to get lost in the vast ice desert beyond the wall ...

Lactantius

Once again, a non-adherent uses  personal insults to convey an argument. I think your position is silly, and I wish you realized that it is. Occam's razor has nothing to do with this, although it would definitely enliminate your theory, which actually postulates that the world is some sort of multi-dimensional theoretical geometry. Flat earth makes sense to anyone who looks out his window. It is a perfectly coherent theory, unlike your theoretical nonsense. I believe in a flat earth disk, which is the only historical version of flat earth adherence your theory makes no sense and involves some mathematical backflips in order to render itself obscure enough to avoid being exposed as a nonsensical and fake theory, much like gravity.

As for your claims about Barthel's philosophy, it is not even on the same level of thinking as Parallax's. Rowbotham was a genius for understanding that reality is reality, and nothing more. That is the most important realization in scientific history. Barthel not only fails to see this, but creates an even more convoluted model than round earth, which falls flat and has never been thought of as more than quackery, by anyone.

My advice to yyou: don't make an argument personal. You sound like a discontetnted child, shouting and refusing to acknowledge anyone but himself.  Your post reveals an immature mind not ready for zetetic enlightenment. Read Rowbotham's work a little, and open your mind a lot, then maybe you'll be able to lay out a normal argument, not one laced with childish inability to think.

May I ask how much you have read from Barthel? May guess is: zero!
I have patiently explained the main reasoning why Euclidean geometry is wrong, you still don't get it or at least pretend to.
Your blather above, which is rather personal and contains mostly projections (you are talking about yourself, omitting the worst part: you are lying), betrays your character all to well ...
When you have learned to read German compare the works (not just the ones on geometry) of Barthel with the one (or two) by Rowbotham. Anyone with sense in his head who does this, will quickly see what is what. But we don't even need that: the proof that space itself is cyclical, which is quite simple, has been presented above. Anybody who has sense in his head and is honest will understand it. Who cares about the rest (like you disinformation artists)?
Anyway, make sure you don't fall off of the edge, if you get there some day ...

Lactantius

Don't go crazy. buddy. Being wrong isn't the end of the world. Maybe one day you'll be able to last in an argument for more than five sentences before you start insulting the other person. It's a shame you lack basic ettiquette, and the fact that you believe in some ridiculous hypothetical philosophastering just makes you seem even more miserable than one would imagine at first.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please Explain the Earth's "Acceleration"

« on: July 23, 2012, 10:53:18 AM »

Question: If there is no gravitational force, wouldn't any magnet be able to hold any object of any mass (any object attracted to the magnet, obviously) above the ground indefinitely?

No, because that object may be too heavy for the magnet to pull up.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...

« on: July 23, 2012, 10:50:15 AM »

One of my problems with Barthel is that his theory necessarily postulates a fourth dimension or sorts, which is the dimension in which the other three curve. I consider this an unacceptable presumption even worse than gravity and Newton's laws.

No, Barthel's theory does not postulate "a fourth dimension or sorts, which is the dimension in which the other three curve." It correctly states that space is three-dimensional, yet a closed totality, which necessarily follows from its cyclical nature, which is logically necessary. You are the one who presupposes Euclidean infinity geometry to be correct, which is logically contradictory. How about first reading what Barthel actually wrote before misrepresenting his theory?

You completely missed my point. Regardless of what geometry you use, the laws of mathematics still apply. And it is obvious to me that if something is curved, it is curved in a space. Disagreeing with this obvious and logical idea is simple theoretical spherical gibberish.

No, I did not completely miss the point, and I'm afraid the gibberish is yours. Which laws of mathematics are you talking about? Euclidean geometry laws founded on the wrong parallel axiom perhaps? It has been sufficiently demonstrated in this thread why the Euclidean parallel axiom (there are two straight lines in a plane, which never intersect, the so-called parallels) is wrong and must be replaced with the Riemannian one (any two straight lines in a plane always have two intersection points 180° apart). The only thing that might be argued about is the question how big this space constant of 180° is. A lot of arguments point to the size of that constant being roughly 20000 km, i.e. half of the Earth's circumference. Again, this is exactly the point, that space is closed without being curved. Curvature can only apply to objects or light within space. If space itself were curved you could lay a tangent to it, which would then be outside that "space". The only problem with the necessity of space being closed without being curved is, as was repeatedly said, the inability of the human mind to visualize, imagine the totality at once. But it can be thought, and what's more, it is inevitable, logically compelling.

Lactantius

This doesn't make any sense. Only a ridiculous "theoretical" approach can produce such a nonsensical result. Two parallel lines don't intersect, and that's obvious. This makes about as much sense as "gravity." The problem with all of these "theories" is the idea inherent in them that something which explains some results can be true, even though it doesn't make any logical sense.

Before jabbering on that things you don't (want to) understand allegedly don't make any logical sense, please go to page 6 of this thread where the proof (the persisting intersection point of a rotating straight with another straight line) is presented that there are no two straight lines in a plane which infinitely keep equal distance, there are no so-called parallels, which should better be named co-verticals at a certain point. You either have not studied what has been presented in this thread or, of course, you are a troll also. Or, third possibility, you simply don't get it, but then I can't help you.

Lactantius

Here's another possibility; you're wrong. Woah, never thought of that?

I saw your proof. It makes no sense and is based on theoretical conjecture of the sort that is in complete defiance of the zeitetic process. Since I am a form adherent to said process, I find your position inherently flawed and your attitude elitist and mind-blowingly ignorant and inflexible. You refuse to even consider the possibility that you're wrong, which makes you susceptible to such outrageously unscientific "theories."

If Barthel's theory is wrong then the whole idea of a flat Earth is wrong and incredibly silly, and you perfectly well know that. There is a reason no one has ever found an edge of the world or an infinite frozen wasteland beyond the imaginary antarctic ice wall. Applying Occam's Razor the simplest reason is: they don't exist. Are you yourself a Flat Earth believer? If so, which version do you adhere to, the disk or the infinite plane? Do you seriously, honestly believe any of those two?
In Barthel's time there were several mathematicians who admitted that his theory was geometrically possible and consistent, you (and practically the whole world) not knowing about that or Barthel's works in general doesn't change that. The zetetic method is fine and well, but it is not everything, and most of all it also depends on a priori assumptions, in this case, which geometrical axiom to choose. BTW, if you could read Barthel's works you would see that also as a philosopher he far surpassed Rowbotham et al.
Anyway, to people like you there is only one advice: Be careful not to fall off the edge of the world resp. not to get lost in the vast ice desert beyond the wall ...

Lactantius

Once again, a non-adherent uses  personal insults to convey an argument. I think your position is silly, and I wish you realized that it is. Occam's razor has nothing to do with this, although it would definitely enliminate your theory, which actually postulates that the world is some sort of multi-dimensional theoretical geometry. Flat earth makes sense to anyone who looks out his window. It is a perfectly coherent theory, unlike your theoretical nonsense. I believe in a flat earth disk, which is the only historical version of flat earth adherence your theory makes no sense and involves some mathematical backflips in order to render itself obscure enough to avoid being exposed as a nonsensical and fake theory, much like gravity.

As for your claims about Barthel's philosophy, it is not even on the same level of thinking as Parallax's. Rowbotham was a genius for understanding that reality is reality, and nothing more. That is the most important realization in scientific history. Barthel not only fails to see this, but creates an even more convoluted model than round earth, which falls flat and has never been thought of as more than quackery, by anyone.

My advice to yyou: don't make an argument personal. You sound like a discontetnted child, shouting and refusing to acknowledge anyone but himself.  Your post reveals an immature mind not ready for zetetic enlightenment. Read Rowbotham's work a little, and open your mind a lot, then maybe you'll be able to lay out a normal argument, not one laced with childish inability to think.

23

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Zoos

« on: July 23, 2012, 10:30:26 AM »

Please drop the topic of slavery. Zoos do not have their animals go out and pick cotton all day. The only time a zoo animals works is when they do demonstrations with the larger intelligent animals. Demonstration = Food. If you have a problem with that, well you have a problem with society itself, since we all work for food in one way or another.

You're correct, we all generally work for our existence. However, we have the right to choose how we would like to work and how we would like to live. Zoo animals, and slaves, do not have this right. They are forced to live in a specific environment and work (keeping in mind that they are working whenever people watch them) in a specific way. I am not claiming that this is moral or immoral, I am just noting the similarity.

Oranges have no choice whether they are juiced, eaten plain, or used for orange soda.

You really think there are oranges in orange soda?

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Logical Inconsistency

« on: July 23, 2012, 10:27:24 AM »

I think The Ice Wall Ninja and Pyriew are the same person, trying to corroborate himself.

That's a disgusting lie and a pathetic attempt to escape a problem. I have nothing to do with that other poster, and I don't even think he believes in flat earth. Once again, a round earther makes a false claim he can't prove in order to try and defend his backwards manner of reasoning. I am shocked that you people would result to personal claims every time you lose an argument. Have some decency, or leave.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please Explain the Earth's "Acceleration"

« on: July 23, 2012, 10:23:56 AM »

Gravity does not mean weight. Do some research before you make baseless claims. Velocity can overcome gravity, as the effect of gravity reduces depending on how far away the object is and the objects mass. The moon has enough velocity that it is actually getting farther away as time goes on.

The definition of the word "gravity" is "weight." This is a claim that all etymologists will concur with. Simply because some scientists have decided to corrupt the very meaning of this word doesn't mean that it actually changed.

As a matter of fact, even the Merriam-Webster dictionary lists "weight" as a definition of the word 'gravity."

This whole argument is another proof of the inane claims the crude majority has invented in order to mask their own refusal to admit their foolishness.

The definition of the word "gravity" is "weight." This is a claim that all etymologists will concur with. Simply because some scientists have decided to corrupt the very meaning of this word doesn't mean that it actually changed.

The scientific definition of gravity is not necessarily the same as the common definition of gravity.  But I think that you already knew that.

Newtonian ignoramuses did attempt to obscure the truth by corrupting language. True.

But apparently the poster above my previous post didn't even know language well enough.

plural grav·i·ties
Definition of GRAVITY
1
a : dignity or sobriety of bearing b : importance, significance; especially : seriousness c : a serious situation or problem
2
: weight
3
a (1) : the gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth, the moon, or a planet for bodies at or near its surface (2) : a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (as stars and planets), and between particles (as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 10-39 times the strength of the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter —called also gravitation, gravitational force — compare electromagnetism 2a, strong force, weak force b : acceleration of gravity c : specific gravity

Definition of WEIGHT
1
a : the amount that a thing weighs b (1) : the standard or established amount that a thing should weigh (2) : one of the classes into which contestants in a sports event are divided according to body weight (3) : poundage required to be carried by a horse in a handicap race
2
a : a quantity or thing weighing a fixed and usually specified amount b : a heavy object (as a metal ball) thrown, put, or lifted as an athletic exercise or contest
3
a : a unit of weight or mass — see metric system table b : a piece of material (as metal) of known specified weight for use in weighing articles c : a system of related units of weight
4
a : something heavy : load b : a heavy object to hold or press something down or to counterbalance
5
a : burden, pressure <the weight of their responsibilities> b : the quality or state of being ponderous c : corpulence
6
a : relative heaviness : mass b : the force with which a body is attracted toward the earth or a celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the product of the mass and the local gravitational acceleration
7
a : the relative importance or authority accorded something <the weight of her opinions> b : measurable influence especially on others <throwing his weight behind the proposal>
8
: overpowering force
9
: the quality (as lightness) that makes a fabric or garment suitable for a particular use or season —often used in combination <summer-weight>
10
: a numerical coefficient assigned to an item to express its relative importance in a frequency distribution
11
: the degree of thickness of the strokes of a type character

Let's take a look at these definitions, shall we?

Gravity, does, in fact, list "weight" as ONE OF it's definitions. When I clicked on the link to the definition of weight howere, I found something interesting. 6 b states " the force with which a body is attracted toward the earth or a celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the product of the mass and the local gravitational acceleration"

So if we compare these two definitions, we can determine that "weight" is a very loose, non descriptive definition of "gravity," and can extrapolate from the definition of weight, that "weight" is a number given to an object as a function of it's mass being attracted to the other mass.

That's thinking backwards, buddy. The Newtonian concept of "gravity" came from the normal concept of weight. Weight isn't a vague concept at all. Gravity is just a failed theoretical attempt to explain weight. You are trying to legitimize a corruption of language by claiming that the definition of weight is a vague description of gravity. It's not. Both the word vague and the word weight were around long before Newton. They mean the same thing. They always have.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I think your position is illogical

« on: July 22, 2012, 06:44:01 PM »

Would you like someone to explain the concept of intersection to you?

Sure, go for it.

Intersect - to meet or cross at a common area.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I think your position is illogical

« on: July 22, 2012, 06:29:53 PM »

Um yes, I'm serious that the sun does not appear to crash into the horizon, lol.

Would you like someone to explain the concept of intersection to you?

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I think your position is illogical

« on: July 22, 2012, 06:06:38 PM »

Intersect it?  It just looks like it's moving behind it.

Are you serious?

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...

« on: July 22, 2012, 06:05:21 PM »

One of my problems with Barthel is that his theory necessarily postulates a fourth dimension or sorts, which is the dimension in which the other three curve. I consider this an unacceptable presumption even worse than gravity and Newton's laws.

No, Barthel's theory does not postulate "a fourth dimension or sorts, which is the dimension in which the other three curve." It correctly states that space is three-dimensional, yet a closed totality, which necessarily follows from its cyclical nature, which is logically necessary. You are the one who presupposes Euclidean infinity geometry to be correct, which is logically contradictory. How about first reading what Barthel actually wrote before misrepresenting his theory?

You completely missed my point. Regardless of what geometry you use, the laws of mathematics still apply. And it is obvious to me that if something is curved, it is curved in a space. Disagreeing with this obvious and logical idea is simple theoretical spherical gibberish.

No, I did not completely miss the point, and I'm afraid the gibberish is yours. Which laws of mathematics are you talking about? Euclidean geometry laws founded on the wrong parallel axiom perhaps? It has been sufficiently demonstrated in this thread why the Euclidean parallel axiom (there are two straight lines in a plane, which never intersect, the so-called parallels) is wrong and must be replaced with the Riemannian one (any two straight lines in a plane always have two intersection points 180° apart). The only thing that might be argued about is the question how big this space constant of 180° is. A lot of arguments point to the size of that constant being roughly 20000 km, i.e. half of the Earth's circumference. Again, this is exactly the point, that space is closed without being curved. Curvature can only apply to objects or light within space. If space itself were curved you could lay a tangent to it, which would then be outside that "space". The only problem with the necessity of space being closed without being curved is, as was repeatedly said, the inability of the human mind to visualize, imagine the totality at once. But it can be thought, and what's more, it is inevitable, logically compelling.

Lactantius

This doesn't make any sense. Only a ridiculous "theoretical" approach can produce such a nonsensical result. Two parallel lines don't intersect, and that's obvious. This makes about as much sense as "gravity." The problem with all of these "theories" is the idea inherent in them that something which explains some results can be true, even though it doesn't make any logical sense.

Before jabbering on that things you don't (want to) understand allegedly don't make any logical sense, please go to page 6 of this thread where the proof (the persisting intersection point of a rotating straight with another straight line) is presented that there are no two straight lines in a plane which infinitely keep equal distance, there are no so-called parallels, which should better be named co-verticals at a certain point. You either have not studied what has been presented in this thread or, of course, you are a troll also. Or, third possibility, you simply don't get it, but then I can't help you.

Lactantius

Here's another possibility; you're wrong. Woah, never thought of that?

I saw your proof. It makes no sense and is based on theoretical conjecture of the sort that is in complete defiance of the zeitetic process. Since I am a form adherent to said process, I find your position inherently flawed and your attitude elitist and mind-blowingly ignorant and inflexible. You refuse to even consider the possibility that you're wrong, which makes you susceptible to such outrageously unscientific "theories."

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...

« on: July 22, 2012, 03:43:17 PM »

One of my problems with Barthel is that his theory necessarily postulates a fourth dimension or sorts, which is the dimension in which the other three curve. I consider this an unacceptable presumption even worse than gravity and Newton's laws.

No, Barthel's theory does not postulate "a fourth dimension or sorts, which is the dimension in which the other three curve." It correctly states that space is three-dimensional, yet a closed totality, which necessarily follows from its cyclical nature, which is logically necessary. You are the one who presupposes Euclidean infinity geometry to be correct, which is logically contradictory. How about first reading what Barthel actually wrote before misrepresenting his theory?

You completely missed my point. Regardless of what geometry you use, the laws of mathematics still apply. And it is obvious to me that if something is curved, it is curved in a space. Disagreeing with this obvious and logical idea is simple theoretical spherical gibberish.

No, I did not completely miss the point, and I'm afraid the gibberish is yours. Which laws of mathematics are you talking about? Euclidean geometry laws founded on the wrong parallel axiom perhaps? It has been sufficiently demonstrated in this thread why the Euclidean parallel axiom (there are two straight lines in a plane, which never intersect, the so-called parallels) is wrong and must be replaced with the Riemannian one (any two straight lines in a plane always have two intersection points 180° apart). The only thing that might be argued about is the question how big this space constant of 180° is. A lot of arguments point to the size of that constant being roughly 20000 km, i.e. half of the Earth's circumference. Again, this is exactly the point, that space is closed without being curved. Curvature can only apply to objects or light within space. If space itself were curved you could lay a tangent to it, which would then be outside that "space". The only problem with the necessity of space being closed without being curved is, as was repeatedly said, the inability of the human mind to visualize, imagine the totality at once. But it can be thought, and what's more, it is inevitable, logically compelling.

Lactantius

This doesn't make any sense. Only a ridiculous "theoretical" approach can produce such a nonsensical result. Two parallel lines don't intersect, and that's obvious. This makes about as much sense as "gravity." The problem with all of these "theories" is the idea inherent in them that something which explains some results can be true, even though it doesn't make any logical sense.