1

Flat Earth Q&A / Why do you hold zeteticism in such high regard?

« on: October 22, 2011, 02:14:34 AM »

A Google search of zetetic/zeteticism yields very few results. The most prominent ones that I can see are either here on TFES or ENAG. A guy called Marcello Truzzi is also mentioned, but his "version" of zeteticism seems to be different to how it is used here. Other than that, its just online dictionary definitions of the word.

I don't understand why the zetetic method is held in such high regard here. Why do you trust the zetetic method on the shape of the Earth when, as far as I know, it has never been used to prove anything of significance other than the shape of the Earth.

Science has given us things from the home computer to the TV & other technology. It has given us the combustion engine, made it possible to travel huge distances around the world in a relatively short time period.

What has zeteticism given us other than a disputed notion of a flat earth, along with ridiculous assumptions of aetheric winds, bendy light, universal acceleration, ice-wall ninjas and other ideas to try to "make it work" so to speak?

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Mars looks like a star; Where does the light come from?

« on: October 12, 2011, 04:53:26 AM »

If the sun is a spotlight, shining directly at earth and nowhere else, why does mars "shine" like a star when we get to see it? Is NASA shining lights at it to get it to reflect light back at us in an attempt to keep the conspiracy going, or is it reflecting sunlight like the moon in the REal world?

3

Flat Earth Debate / Slinky in freefall

« on: October 11, 2011, 07:10:59 AM »

For anyone who hasn't seen one of these:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

This video is very possibly faked, however it is a pretty cheap experiment to replicate. Just buy a slinky.
I have done this and can confirm that they fall exactly as depicted in these videos. You don't even need the benefit of slow motion replay. You can see it happen in real time.

The simple explanation for why the bottom doesn't fall once you let go, according to REal science, is as follows:

When you extend the slinky and hold it suspended until it has stopped bouncing, it is in a state of equilibrium. The force of gravity (acting downwards) is balanced out by the tension in the slinky (acting upwards).

When you leave go of the top, it starts to fall.

The tension at the bottom has not yet changed, so the forces are still in equilibrium.

Once the slinky has collapsed sufficiently, i.e. the top has fallen far enough, there is no longer enough tension to at the bottom to counteract the force of gravity.

The bottom of the slinky falls.


According to UA theory, shouldn't the bottom seem to fall immediately?
According to UA, while the bottom seems to "hover", it is actually accelerating upwards at the exact same speed as the Earth. What is causing this acceleration? If it is the tension in the slinky, then surely, while it is still held, this tension should be sufficient to cause the bottom to go up relative the the Earth?

For the record, I have also done this experiment in an elevator as this is the cheapest (and admittedly imperfect) replication of UA I could think of. I took no video proof, as FEtards would simply claim it is faked. However, again, it is a cheap experiment. You don't need my proof, just go out and do it. In the elevator, the bottom fell noticeably quicker than otherwise.

For me, this pretty much disproves UA and proves that the traditional model of gravitation on this small scale is a more accurate representation of reality.

4

Flat Earth General / The wiki needs to be updated

« on: October 11, 2011, 04:08:40 AM »

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Experimental_Evidence
This section says:

A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!

This should be updated to say

A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie, unless it shows something we deny to be true, in which case it is automatically a lie.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Zetetic Science

« on: October 07, 2011, 04:08:45 AM »

From Rowbotham (bold added for emphasis):

THE term Zetetic is derived from the Greek verb Zeteo; which means to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. It is here used in contradistinction from the word "theoretic," the meaning of which is, speculative--imaginary--not tangible,--scheming, but not proving.

None can doubt that by making special experiments, and collecting manifest and undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom, the result must be more consistent and satisfactory than the contrary method of framing a theory or system--assuming the existence and operation of causes of which there is no direct and practical evidence, and which is only claimed to be "admitted for the sake of argument," and for the purpose of giving an apparent and plausible, but not necessarily truthful explanation of phenomena. All theories are of this character. "Supposing, instead of inquiring, imagining systems instead of learning from observation and experience the true constitution of things.

Does this not mean that all of your theories about bendy light, aetheric winds, universal acceleration, NASA conspiracies, theoretical infinite plane Earth model, etc. are all unzetetic?

When you don't use the zetetic method then, again according to Rowbotham:

The real state of things escapes our observation; or, if it presents itself to us, we are apt either to reject it wholly as fiction, or, by new efforts of a vain ingenuity to interweave it with our own conceits, and labour to make it tally with our favourite schemes. Thus, by blending together parts so ill-suited, the whole comes forth an absurd composition of truth and error.

Strikes me as a very accurate prediction of how FEers just keep twisting ideas and making new theories to fit in with a preconceived notion of a flat earth.

Also, if you are only allowed to use what can be zetetically observed, should that not prevent you from using, for example, special relativity to prove that a constantly accelerating Earth won't surpass light speed? I mean, how have you observed this zetetically (whatever the hell that even means)? Are you allowed to cherry pick what works for you from mainstream science, e.g. special relativity, while ignoring other universally accepted parts, e.g. gravitation. Is this what zetetic science is? What is the basis for which parts you accept and which parts you reject?

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity on other planets

« on: September 27, 2011, 07:15:34 AM »

From  the FAQ:

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

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

I can't help but wonder how a FE'er would expect to experience standing on another planet at, for example, the south pole (or equivalent).
Assuming that the planet was sufficiently large that the horizon seemed flat (as the curvature would be slight), there would be no visible evidence that they were standing on a globe as against a plate.
Would they expect to fall off the planet if they were at the "bottom"? Or would they accept that gravity would keep them on the surface?

If you accept that gravity would hold you onto the planet's surface & the horizon would seem flat, then the experience would presumably be pretty similar to standing at any point on the Earth's surface. Why the need to invent theories that "prove" that the Earth is flat?