Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - amazed

Pages: [1] 2
1
I've been on the forum only a short while, but I've learned some interesting things about the Flat Earth Society in that time. I have seen most of these FET'ers basically make either completely illogical arguments (evolution, ancient meaning of earth, etc)

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't want to ramble on since I can't figure out how to respond point by point, but thanks for your response.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The appearance of Gravity
« on: May 20, 2010, 04:22:37 PM »
your prior statement equals the statement everyone is psychotic

No it does not.

Wikipedia is not recommended as a diagnostic tool.



Of course, when you have nothing to say disparage the sources.

I wonder if a recommended diagnostic tool is formal training in psychiatric medicine and experience with psychiatric patients, which I have. Does that make a difference to you? I used wiki because it's an easy read and written for the layperson.. easy enough for an idiot to understand (so I thought).

At any rate, find a reputable source that defines psychosis differently.. that's a direct challenge in case this is all getting too confusing for you. Any reputable source will define psychosis as a bizarre break from reality, in one way or another.


3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« on: May 20, 2010, 02:13:28 PM »
I'm not FE, but I can't think of any reason why this wouldn't show exactly what you want to.
see my above post. while bendy light maths do create curvature, it is a quadratic, not a circle, which is what you need for the earth to appear curved. also here's one for you, light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8t
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,980) essentially, light should now appear to be around one kilometer below the earth. that is unless UA effect light, which invalidates my arguement, yet at the same time invalidates modern physics

That's why it says the relation is only valid at small distances.

*facepalm*

it doesn't matter the distance, the more time elapses, the farther the light shall drop.
OR
is light moved upwards with the UA?
Please try and make sense in your posts.


Basically, what I'm asking, is does the UA effect light? light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8t
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,46,000) essentially, light should now appear to be around 46km below earth

The effects of UA on light would be no different than the effects of gravity on light.


errm Gravity does effect light >.> see gravitational lensing

Good point, but I think the original discussion was about the observed effects of sunlight on the Earth. I didn't say gravity didn't affect light, it does, but as long as the UA extends to the Earth and the Sun, it would be no different than the observed effects of gravity.

UA would not be able to explain gravitational lensing as it is strong evidence of, obviously, gravitation.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« on: May 20, 2010, 10:38:02 AM »
I'm not FE, but I can't think of any reason why this wouldn't show exactly what you want to.
see my above post. while bendy light maths do create curvature, it is a quadratic, not a circle, which is what you need for the earth to appear curved. also here's one for you, light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8t
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,980) essentially, light should now appear to be around one kilometer below the earth. that is unless UA effect light, which invalidates my arguement, yet at the same time invalidates modern physics

That's why it says the relation is only valid at small distances.

*facepalm*

it doesn't matter the distance, the more time elapses, the farther the light shall drop.
OR
is light moved upwards with the UA?
Please try and make sense in your posts.


Basically, what I'm asking, is does the UA effect light? light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8t
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,46,000) essentially, light should now appear to be around 46km below earth

The effects of UA on light would be no different than the effects of gravity on light.

5
I only believe what I can confirm myself by my limited means.

This is where you went wrong.  

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

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

I am also saying that it is the only "noble" or "legitimate" FET stance... any other FET stance is bogus and is a result of double-standards/hypocrisy (though perhaps unintentional).

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The appearance of Gravity
« on: May 20, 2010, 07:17:23 AM »
You've just repeated the same canard again.

If anyone thinks you know what you're talking about, more fool them.




So you see now hopefully, and I am sure all others can see, there is no point in educating a fool.. he lacks the facilities required for education in the first place. I give you evidence and reasoning simple enough a grade-schooler could understand that your prior statement equals the statement everyone is psychotic.. and your response above (and the ones before) are notably devoid of any reasoning or logic whatsoever, and merely include passing references and innuendos... and in the end, you remain uneducated.

7
Flat Earth Debate / The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« on: May 20, 2010, 07:10:03 AM »
I've been on the forum only a short while, but I've learned some interesting things about the Flat Earth Society in that time. I have seen most of these FET'ers basically make either completely illogical arguments (evolution, ancient meaning of earth, etc) or else show blatant hypocrisy and double-standards (disbelieving scientific community data while asking others to believe their fanciful imaginations). As for the conspiracy possibility... even that is approached very sloppily and without showing hard facts and evidence (which is apparently the basis for the movement in the first place).

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

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

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

8
Why are FET'ers so desperate? It's like you guys don't even have any self-respect, you come up with the most inane arguments imaginable. But then I guess you kind of have to be to believe the earth is flat but still... this is embarassing. There actually is only one legitimate FET position and none of you seem to be taking it!


9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The appearance of Gravity
« on: May 19, 2010, 11:54:08 PM »
So getting back to your original statement of "Everyone has bizarre breaks with reality," you are essentially saying everyone suffers from psychosis.

Why are you repeating VoR's error of confusing "bizarre breaks of reality" with delusional disorders when I've already pointed it out?

I am not essentially saying everyone suffers from psychosis at all.
 

Oh really?

"Psychosis is a... a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis

Your statement "Everyone has bizarre breaks of reality," according to the above definitions, is EQUAL to the statement everyone suffers from psychosis.

Who is talking about delusional disorders anyway?? Certainly not me... we are talking about your statement "EVERYONE HAS BIZARRE BREAKS FROM REALITY."

Quote
Quote
You say this comment contradicts the DSM... quote it



Make shit up then demand a citation when tripped up does not get a pass.

Pardon me for asking you to cite something pivotal to your own argument. I wasn't just asking you for the citation, I was asking you to explain why my statement was incorrect... simply saying so and not giving an explanation (that makes sense) is not very satisfactory.

Also, you may be interested to know that I know exactly from where in the DSM you got that tidbit of information... unfortunately, it doesn't seem you have any actual experience using the DSM or you wouldn't be making such idiotic conclusions, nor would you be looking at the entry for delusional disorder (which is a very specific illness and was **NOT** the topic of discussion, and is only being brought into the discussion because of your ignorance of these matters).




10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The appearance of Gravity
« on: May 19, 2010, 10:56:21 PM »
Everyone has bizarre breaks with reality.

That was my statement, which is correct.



Funny that you speak of this thing called reality. Are you able to define it?


We are defining it.

Congratulations.

That is a statement completely devoid of any meaning whatsoever.

Incorrect. For example, the delusional disorders in the DSM IV are characterized by non-bizarre breaks from reality.


This is an attempt at definition of reality:

Quote
>99% of people in this world are sane and think they are sane. They do not have breaks with reality.
<1% of the people in this world are insane, but they think they are sane.

But it is a disreputable piece of amateur clinical psychology which can easily be discarded. With reference to the DSM, even, ironically enough.


It is indeed unwise to argue with a fool but education is some remedy in many cases.



(Yes I am guilty of being a fool right now but here goes)

The whole point of calling someone a fool is that they cannot be educated... they are not just misinformed, they are lacking in several capacities.

Anyway since it seems like my comment woke you up and this time you actually had something substantive to say... let me ask my question again.. define reality. You speak of reality but it seems we have different definitions of it.

As for me, I did not define reality.. that was in no way a definition of reality.. it was a comment on the perceptions of people... in other words, virtually everyone, sane or insane, thinks they are sane. You say this comment contradicts the DSM... quote it.

Let me save you the trouble and tell you that you are wrong.. the definition of a psychosis is an inability to distinguish fantasy from reality and therefore, someone "insane" would not necessarily know it; therefore, even the insane think they are sane.

So getting back to your original statement of "Everyone has bizarre breaks with reality," you are essentially saying everyone suffers from psychosis.

I in turn say, speak for yourself.


11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The appearance of Gravity
« on: May 19, 2010, 10:45:23 PM »
Saying only a fool argues with a fool is actually not only coherent, it's a fairly common expression (i.e. not my own authorship) and the meaning is quite obvious to English speakers.

That's not what you said.  That makes sense; what you said makes no sense at all.

good grief that was a typo. seriously i didn't even catch it until now..

Of course.  How would you recognize you're being incoherent if someone doesn't point it out to you?

Quote
(ps i meant english, get it?)

You don't have a very good grasp of the English language.  The word "English" is a proper noun and should be capitalized (as should the word "I").  I'm not sure I'd pass judgment on other peoples' grasp of the language if I were you.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize I accidentally found the English Grammar Nazi forum. Forgive my indiscretions.

How unfortunate that a moderator is completely derailing a discussion and is being distracted by typos and lack of proper punctuation. I can begin to see why this forum is in the shape its in. Don't you have more substantive things related to science and FET that you could invest your energies in?




12
Well no I think I have to disagree, there is no way to distinguish true gravity versus UA given the area of observation is small enough. This is I believe a part of the equivalence principle... The observed effects of gravity is no different than an acceleration field such as a UA. The difference only becomes apparent when you observe over a larger scale and you can begin to detect tidal forces (in other words, you begin to detect that the acceleration field is not uniform in one direction but rather emanates from a source). So the raindrop would behave similarly in either case.


fristly HIVEMIND with Parsifal
secondly, If I remember correctly, OP was trying to say that math and science cannot be trusted if 1+1=1 in some cases like the raindrops combining. OP then continued to try to discredit us through this misrepresentation of facts and a strawman, only to end
up with a red herring


Were you responding to me?



yeah i was. I was wondering why you were talking about rain drops or OP's initial post

I was mostly responding to you and Averti when you said the raindrops would be round and Averti said they would be flat. I was saying that I disagree with both of you because if the earth was flat and under the influence of UA, raindrops would be no different than they are now. That is the equivalence principle.

I wasn't talking about/to the OP.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The appearance of Gravity
« on: May 19, 2010, 10:18:00 PM »
Saying only a fool argues with a fool is actually not only coherent, it's a fairly common expression (i.e. not my own authorship) and the meaning is quite obvious to English speakers.

That's not what you said.  That makes sense; what you said makes no sense at all.

good grief that was a typo. seriously i didn't even catch it until now.. i think everyone knew what i meant especially considering that is a common egnlish expression.

(ps i meant english, get it?)

14
Well no I think I have to disagree, there is no way to distinguish true gravity versus UA given the area of observation is small enough. This is I believe a part of the equivalence principle... The observed effects of gravity is no different than an acceleration field such as a UA. The difference only becomes apparent when you observe over a larger scale and you can begin to detect tidal forces (in other words, you begin to detect that the acceleration field is not uniform in one direction but rather emanates from a source). So the raindrop would behave similarly in either case.


fristly HIVEMIND with Parsifal
secondly, If I remember correctly, OP was trying to say that math and science cannot be trusted if 1+1=1 in some cases like the raindrops combining. OP then continued to try to discredit us through this misrepresentation of facts and a strawman, only to end
up with a red herring


Were you responding to me?

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The appearance of Gravity
« on: May 19, 2010, 10:13:27 PM »
Only a fool with argue with a fool so good day/night sir..

This statement is completely incoherent.

lol

Simply saying a statement is devoid of meaning does not make it so... kind of like how saying the earth is flat or sky mirrors and ice walls exist does not make it so.

His statement "we are defining it," has absolutely no meaning unless you care to exegete one for me... the question was how he defined reality... and the answer "we are defining it" held absolutely no meaning in relation to the question asked...

Saying only a fool argues with a fool is actually not only coherent, it's a fairly common expression (i.e. not my own authorship) and the meaning is quite obvious to English speakers.

Are all FET'ers this cranially challenged?
Seriously?

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The appearance of Gravity
« on: May 19, 2010, 10:06:56 PM »
Everyone has bizarre breaks with reality.

That was my statement, which is correct.



Funny that you speak of this thing called reality. Are you able to define it?


We are defining it.

Congratulations.

That is a statement completely devoid of any meaning whatsoever. Only a fool would argue with a fool so good day/night sir.. enjoy your madness.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with Flat Earth Hypothesis.
« on: May 19, 2010, 10:03:00 PM »
Well it's one thing to make outrageous claims.. there are people who are out there and do this, and that is freedom of speech. They're idiots, but that's all. Harmless idiots. You feel sorry for them. They dont know any better.

I don't feel sorry, on the other hand, for hypocrites. They do know better, in fact, that is supposedly why FET'ers object with the standard RET in the first place, because they feel an unbelievable urge to confirm everything by themselves and by their own eyes. But to be so severe in asking for evidence on one hand, and then on the other coming up with outlandish claims without any hard evidence whatsoever and then simply asking people to believe them.. it's clear that they should know better.. they are not simple idiots. They should uphold themselves and FET to the same rigid standards that they hold RET to.


18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The appearance of Gravity
« on: May 19, 2010, 09:58:26 PM »
Everyone has bizarre breaks with reality.

That was my statement, which is correct.



Funny that you speak of this thing called reality. Are you able to define it?




19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Error in Newton's Laws of Motion
« on: May 19, 2010, 09:22:23 PM »
Seriously, what a farce this discussion is becoming.

What business does FET have with Newton? Newton's laws were derived essentially from the observation of the movement of heavenly bodies and an acceptance that the world was spherical (as well as the heavenly bodies). Without accepting or observing these facts, Newton's laws are irrelevant entirely. Those basic observations are what led to the discovery of the laws... without those observations, the law is irrelevant.

This is like the blind man trying to prove that colors don't exist. I'm going to call you out on this one blind man... yes you're right, colors don't exist, but just for you. (For the mentally slow, this analogy translates to yes FET'ers, Newton's laws don't exist or are erroneous, to you.. they should be, because you don't accept the basis for their derivation).


20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with Flat Earth Hypothesis.
« on: May 19, 2010, 08:47:08 PM »
This discussion is in all seriousness, and I would like there to be no flaming or trolling please.

As has been mentioned hundreds of times in this thread, every facet of cartography, surveying, engineering and long distance travel has to base finding on the assumption of a round Earth. Echo studies of earthquakes and nuclear tests have revealed the liner movement of waves through the magma layer as if it where a spherical object. Photographic, radar, laser, sonar, magnetic resonance, X-ray and electro-magnetic scans of the Earths surface seem to reveal an object that is 1/300 off being a perfect sphere.
 Indeed even the Ancients where aware of this, and the Ancient Greeks even measured the circumference to a degree of accuracy of 5%. 
Quote
Eratosthenes (276194 BCE) estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BCE. He had heard that in Syene the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice whereas in Alexandria it still cast a shadow. Using the differing angles the shadows made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations he estimated a circumference of around 250,000 stades. The length of a 'stade' is not precisely known, but Eratosthenes' figure only has an error of around five to ten percent.[15][16]

 Then we have the problem of 'bendy light'. Though refraction is an obvious explanation for this phenomena, the atmosphere would have to have a constantly changing refractive index to create a smooth curve that would appear to be straight, and the nature of reflective substances would have to be far more complex than is currently theorized.
 The mechanism causing the upward motion of a disk shaped Earth also must be addressed, and the complete lack of observational evidence in the form of astronomical changes as the shift in position relative to the universe should mean we would see the stars go past our field of vision in a way precession cannot possibly explain.
 Around the world flight would also be affected, as there would be no direct route through the 'ice-wall'. This is contrary to the actual flight paths, where in flights go from Brisbane to Hawaii to New York, or from Brisbane to London to New York, one going west, the other east and without deviating from (relative to a sphere) straight paths, meeting in one place. Hundreds of sailors, aviators, and astronauts have taken journeys that circumnavigate the Earth without a single stop, and in all directions without coming to any barrier.

How can you fit this into Occam's Razer? How do you answer these problems where experimentation will prove you wrong?
You only have a few very flawed experiments, where Round Earth has thousands of daily proofs.

Please explain your reasoning.

Here's my problem with FET.

The premise of the whole argument is that they distrust the sources that "confirm" the earth is round. Government conspiracies yadda yadda yadda. They say they only believe what they can themselves confirm.

Yet on the other hand, they entertain such unbelievable and notably COMPLETELY unobserved unsubstantiated ideas (i.e. **unconfirmed**) and expect people to believe them just because they are able to think of them. As if I should believe in the tooth fairy just because someone else conceives it (which is a lot more believable than ice walls and sky mirrors).

So what I am saying is, the entire basis of FET is one big hypocrisy.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The appearance of Gravity
« on: May 19, 2010, 08:42:34 PM »
Everyone has bizarre breaks with reality. Especially the people who think they don't.





I'm going to assume you are an FET'er since you seem to spout one or two line jibberish in most of your posts.

>99% of people in this world are sane and think they are sane. They do not have breaks with reality.
<1% of the people in this world are insane, but they think they are sane. Many of them fall into specific clinical categories which have been outlined for example in the DSM. They often also are subject to paranoid delusions (such as conspiracy theories, government implanting sensors in their brain so that they can hear your thoughts etc)

So your comment was not only useless in terms of adding to the discussion (since you never actually came out and made a specific point in regards to the discussion), it is also completely incorrect. Just another one-liner that superficially sounds attractive to people who are shallow.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gemorphologic traits of the Earth
« on: May 19, 2010, 05:41:06 PM »
That is a sophomoric attempt to say chemical charge is a substitute for strong and weak nuclear force.

No, it is a sophomoric attempt to say X-force charge is a substitute for gravity.



There was no mention of X force in the original post, just charge variability. When some one says charge I, like most earth scientists think chemical charge (+ & -) of a substance. 


Unfortunatly Newtons first law (absence of net force leaves a body in suspension unless acted upon by another force) just further solidifies why Gravity is necessary for Geomorphic progression. Since in UA the net force is in an upward velocity, mass wasting as well as stream flow would be reversed, and I've yet to encounter a stream flowing up. As for sources, please provide peer reviewed sources conducting legitimate scientific inquiry that resulted in findings conducive to FE. That would be much appreciated. In return I will provide a few peer reviewed sources supporting RE:

http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=TRD&recid=A9218161AH&q=earth+sphericity+&uid=789464004&setcookie=yes

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119756467/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/34/10/877.short

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u81520k014t73041/

http://www.seis.nagoya-u.ac.jp/yamaoka/paper/rg.pdf

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=370924


These papers are from a variety of disciplines all in some way indicating the spheroidal nature of the Earth.

Oh, no one has told you yet? UA only effects the earth such that anything on the surface of the earth isn't effected by it directly. that said, water when in free fall, is stationary. the earth just rushes up to meet it, and wedges it down ward, like what happens if you were to push a ball with a wedge

If Universal Acceleration doesn't effect the entire "flat" earth at the same time it should be renamed to " unknown but subjectively variable force hat pushes everything up but the earths surface" acceleration. An unfortunate hole in your logic is you provide a simple experiment to prove that concept via a wedge and a ball, however since this can be explained by the current RE model of 4 elementary forces and physics, you must do better then that. If that we atmosphere the case the atmosphere would be pushed aside too and the earth would push straight through it. Here's an experiment for you, push a wedge up through a tub of water, what happens when the wedge pushes through the surface of the water? does the water stay on it? or does the water flow back into the tub?

At best UA would cause all water in the world to be continually pressed against the outer extents of the world (the rim) and we would be left with no lakes, no streams etc. the atmosphere would likewise be pushed out the same way and weather could not occur.

As per the concept of free fall......YOU CAN NOT FREE FALL WITH UA... ... without gravity, UA would have to keep pushing you up (seeing as it is UNIVERSAL) so what would cause the water to "free fall"?

EX: what direction does a person in the ocean with exactly neutral buoyancy "fall" ? no where, because gravity is checked by buoyancy and in the absence of another force the person remains at equilibrium. Since FE says there is no mass on earth, why does a rock sink while that person floats?
 The easy answer is density, however:

p=m/v   

is the formula for density, the m = mass, v= volume and p= density. So since density is a function of MASS and volume, nothing can have density on an earth with no mass.



Firstly, I'm not FES. I'm a Real Earther, you know the one that actually exists unstead of the flat one that works on magic. "YOU CAN NOT FREE FALL WITH UA" Yes you can. Imagine that the earth is accelerating towards a still object at 9.8m/s/s. now from the earths frame of reference at what speed are you acceleration at toward the earth? 9.8m/s/s you say? Its called the Equivalency Principal my friend. In this case, it is a fictitious force, it only exists in a non inertial reference frame. And in FE, only inertial mass exists. gravity is a property of gravitational mass, not inertial mass, so p=ymv still works. As for the atmosphere thing, some say the Icewall that is 62 miles high holds it in. Others think there is no edge -that it goes on forever. Finally, some say the UA holds it in somehow.

Agree, but why do you need to explain how the atmosphere is held in place? The UA acceleration field can explain that just as well as gravity.

And just an interesting not, if the earth was a near infinite sphere, we would not be able to distinguish it from a flat surface.

23
Well no I think I have to disagree, there is no way to distinguish true gravity versus UA given the area of observation is small enough. This is I believe a part of the equivalence principle... The observed effects of gravity is no different than an acceleration field such as a UA. The difference only becomes apparent when you observe over a larger scale and you can begin to detect tidal forces (in other words, you begin to detect that the acceleration field is not uniform in one direction but rather emanates from a source). So the raindrop would behave similarly in either case.


24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The appearance of Gravity
« on: May 19, 2010, 05:27:49 PM »

how would it possibly know how to configure to that precise pattern of blinking? also, the black dots seem to disappear when you look at them. how is that possible?

why don't you draw it on yourself with pure carbon

I will ask you again, are you being honest and do you have proof?
At this time we know that both Parsifal and Tom Bishop are, or have recently become, total trolls without the least bit of an intention of good faith.

We should remember everyone of these claims (that the ink and the carbon themselves are complicit with the Conspiracy) every time they try to troll a thread again.

And I love how everyone else is following suit. this is the cancer that is killing FES, someone should call Robowtham...

I knew something was up when Parsifal started going on an on about his senses being better than machines, and that optical illusions aren't real. Now Gin is saying that moonlight is harmful due to his extremely badly derived conclusion, and that the earth doesn't push on plants (blatant lie). to top it off, Tom Bishop is saying that plants don't need light to live.

Well they might not necessarily be trolls... we've all seen A Beautiful Mind, and you don't have to be frankly schizophrenic to have these delusional beliefs.. there's plenty of people with schizoaffective disorder and borderline schizophrenia who have enough capacity to work a computer and even hold down a job but down inside have this bizarre break with reality.


25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« on: May 19, 2010, 12:38:21 PM »
Evolution doesn't PROVE anything.. evolution is an explanation of OBSERVED phenoma. Even if a very plausible theory of evolution could be given for a flat earth, it would be completely irrelevant and relegated to science fiction if a flat earth was not OBSERVED.

...Are you admitting that you would deny proof of a flat earth simply if the proof came from biology?  Can no other field of science vindicate another?
You are showing your own ignorance about science in general. Science is not about proof, even though this word is sometimes used. Science is about explanation and prediction of observations and experiments, based on models.

Nobody is saying that scientific disciplines cannot help each other. Interdisciplinary work groups are very common. But evolution is not there to find absolute answers to absolute questions. It will not find the fastest organic organism possible, or the longest possible lifespan. As a process, natural selection will tend to produce organisms that are fast enough to survive, with enough longevity to survive, and that migrate in an efficiently enough fashion to survive.

Subjects that are better at migrating, at the expense of other critical abilities, will tend to not survive until childbearing age. There is no evolutionary benefit to reducing the length of a migration by a couple hundred meters, so the most probable evolutionary path for any given migratory bird species will be towards better immunity to some diseases, or better protection against predators, for example, instead of towards the improvement of an already efficient migratory path.

Ok quacks, let me put it more simply...

The study of evolution is an OBSERVATIONAL science... in other words, you first observe a flat earth, then you can go back and reverse engineer how it came to be. In other words, you still first prove flatness.. without that, you may as well come up with theories of the earth being a pyramid or a big boat or even entirely imaginary and we live in the matrix, because its about as valid. Without first proving the earth is flat, there is no evolutionary theory that is valid for that. Darwins first step was finding fossils or observing animals... he had to first have facts before evolutionary theory was possible... he didn't dream of unicorns and dragons and say they begot horses and lizards.


26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The appearance of Gravity
« on: May 19, 2010, 12:30:00 PM »
how would it possibly know how to configure to that precise pattern of blinking? also, the black dots seem to disappear when you look at them. how is that possible?

The Conspiracy uses technology far beyond anything which is conceivable by the layman.

why don't you draw it on yourself with pure carbon

I hope everyone realizes that there is a name for the above.. its called paranoid schizophrenia. Only a fool would argue or even speak to a fool such as this. A psychotic break.. complete disconnection with reality... combined with a healthy pinch of hypocrisy for doubting standard science because he doesn't trust the government but expecting everyone to take his word for it that there is an alien conspiracy going on.. so who wants to waste their valuable energy arguing with a delusional hypocritical paranoid?

This isn't a personal attack fyi, I am sure many of the dsm criteria for paranoid schiz have been met.


Can you suggest a means of obtaining pure carbon?

27
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« on: May 18, 2010, 04:07:56 PM »
It seems to me that the flat earth society forum is composed of a much greater number of round earth believers than flat earth believers, and the flat earth believers are noticeably more quiet succinct and vague in their responses if they respond at all. Am I just catching the FE'rs on a bad day?




I think that's because every single argument that could have occurred on these forums have, at least 549 times.  The RE'ers seem to overly enjoy rehashing their treasured memories of attempting to refute FET; the FE'ers, meanwhile, have gotten tired of it and aren't very willing to jump into the cycle for the 550th time.

That's a fairly prejudiced statement. Anyway, you would think FE'rs would take a proper stand and have a formidable argument... in fact if they are so polished in their responses, they could merely cut and paste old arguments.. the reason they can't (and I have now read a number of their threads) is because the bulk of their arguments are one-liner dismissals and half-truths, or of course, the fall-back argument of yelling conspiracy.



Truth is never prejudiced; it is just unpleasant at times.  About as unpleasant as copy-and-pasting old arguments to make the RE'ers turn pink and giddy because they want to try their hand at refuting the same handful of arguments for the next ten years. 

Whatever argument you wanted "polished responses" for, they've already been given ad nauseam; just sift through the anti-Zetetic babble to find it.  If your virgin eyes are heartily offended by the "conspiracy yelling" or whatever else, no one is forcing you to stay. Not even the armed, inbred Ice Wall guards who have been enslaved to protect the abysmal hinterland beyond known civilization.   ;D

I have only seen a few threads, you want to put your theory to a test or is testing ideas a novel concept? Let's take any few threads and count the fe responses vs re and see how many truly extensive scientific fe posts we find.

28
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« on: May 18, 2010, 04:03:06 PM »
Moved to the General board.


Yes, there are probably more RE'ers here than FE'ers. Not sure what you mean about vague responses though.

Well vague meaning the gauntlet was thrown in the form of multiple varieties of experiments that meet general scientific criteria to prove the earth is spherical... whereas the FE'rs rely on fanciful dreams of sky mirrors and such, and provide nothing of the same caliber as the RE'rs.


Most of the experiments proposed have not been thought through, and when FE'ers explain why, RE'ers prefer to think we're making up excuses, instead of realising that their experiment doesn't work. If you actually read and pay attention to the criticisms made, you'll see they're perfectly valid and entirely justified.

Well I tried searching for an answer to what I thought was the most obvious proof/disproof, and that is meeasuring curvature using a triangle... in fact there's a whole set of geometrical proofs that are essentially what is used in geometry to define a euclidean vs noneuclidean surface. Have not found any response to this.. if u have seen it plz point me to the thread so I may see what the fe gospel says.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« on: May 18, 2010, 03:35:59 PM »
Moved to the General board.


Yes, there are probably more RE'ers here than FE'ers. Not sure what you mean about vague responses though.

Well vague meaning the gauntlet was thrown in the form of multiple varieties of experiments that meet general scientific criteria to prove the earth is spherical... whereas the FE'rs rely on fanciful dreams of sky mirrors and such, and provide nothing of the same caliber as the RE'rs.

30
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« on: May 18, 2010, 03:34:43 PM »
It seems to me that the flat earth society forum is composed of a much greater number of round earth believers than flat earth believers, and the flat earth believers are noticeably more quiet succinct and vague in their responses if they respond at all. Am I just catching the FE'rs on a bad day?



I think that's because every single argument that could have occurred on these forums have, at least 549 times.  The RE'ers seem to overly enjoy rehashing their treasured memories of attempting to refute FET; the FE'ers, meanwhile, have gotten tired of it and aren't very willing to jump into the cycle for the 550th time.

That's a fairly prejudiced statement. Anyway, you would think FE'rs would take a proper stand and have a formidable argument... in fact if they are so polished in their responses, they could merely cut and paste old arguments.. the reason they can't (and I have now read a number of their threads) is because the bulk of their arguments are one-liner dismissals and half-truths, or of course, the fall-back argument of yelling conspiracy.


Pages: [1] 2