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 - Mongrelman

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: proof, of what?
« on: February 17, 2008, 12:34:29 PM »
Ah, nuts.  I can't top that.  :(

EDIT:  I have now concocted a counter-argument:

Your mom looks funny.  Therefore, everything she believes in is fallacious.  She believes you exist, so your existence must be a fallacy.  Therefore, you do not exist.

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: proof, of what?
« on: February 17, 2008, 12:27:38 PM »
My point is, that proving that 1 = 2 and then explaining why 1 != 2 is not a means to disprove FE theory.  To disprove FE Theory, one should just explain why FE Theory is fallacious, not explain why certain math is. 

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: proof, of what?
« on: February 17, 2008, 12:18:51 PM »
Your point is summed up, to me, as the following:

"If you can divide by zero, 1 = 2.  You cannot divide by zero.  Therefore, 1 != 2."

Which can be expressed with the following:

"Through complex methods, one can effectively prove anything.  But, if the methods for providing proof are fallacious, the result is also fallacious."

Now, since you're saying this relates to FET, I'm assuming you mean something like this:

"Through complex methods, one can concoct proof that the Earth is flat.  But, if the methods for proving it are fallacious, the conclusion is fallacious, and the Earth is, in fact, not flat."

So far, that's technically valid.  If Flat Earth Theory uses fallacious methods for proving the shape of the Earth, then the result cannot be trusted.  ... So where exactly does FET divide by zero?  Where do we use a fallacious method?  Because, unless we use some fallacious method, your point is entirely irrelevant to our conclusion.

4
The Lounge / Re: I regret to inform you all....
« on: February 16, 2008, 10:54:27 AM »
I'm jealous everyone loves you more than they love me. I hope you die in a fire.

HOW DARE YOU!   >:(

 ;)

5
"Also, this photograph is taken from Rosario, Washington, and looks clear across the Puget sound. The mountains you see on the opposite bank are not very large, their apparent small size is entirely explained by perspective. They have not been cut at all from the bottom by the curvature of the earth, despite being in excess of 60 miles away."

I thought that was the best point of the first post.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dimension
« on: February 08, 2008, 04:15:52 PM »
so whats on the other side.....



Would you prefer the regular or spiky club?  Because I've got both ready.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dimension
« on: February 07, 2008, 11:39:30 AM »
Probably a good idea.  I should also make more clubs and distribute those in case he replies while I'm offline.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dimension
« on: February 07, 2008, 11:24:28 AM »
so far, after investigating this flat earth perspective, I've come to the conclusion that your recreating the universe as Two Dimensional, this also proves that if we are living in a two dimensional world, should we not be flat as well...should space time, not be flat?
The debate could go on, and on...so, Iv'e cerated a simple question that proves weather earth is flat or not... Sorry to do this, but this is just one more thing in life that stops us form what we all actualy need to realize. So here it is.

What is Flat...?    :)

The world has observable length and width.  The Earth is accelerating upward according to FET, implying heighth of space for us to move through.  If you would kindly explain to me how length, width, and heighth implies a 2D universe, I would be glad to put away the club I was about to bludgeon you with.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Conspiracy motive
« on: February 06, 2008, 09:54:27 AM »
I suggested this idea months ago.

Oh.  Well, it's being suggested again.  =D

You know, thats an interesting idea, and it would make more sense as to why governments are suddenly co-operating on this, but it sorta eliminates the fun "evil government" plotline.

Well, yeah, but in doing that, it also eliminates the "random conspiracy theory against the government" feel the idea has. 

10
Flat Earth Debate / Conspiracy motive
« on: February 06, 2008, 07:34:08 AM »
In all my time here, I cannot recall ever having seen this idea brought up, so I'm giving it a shot.  If it has been brought up, sorry.  The idea came from a joke elsewhere, but I actually like it.

Is it possible that the conspiracy's whole goal is actually to protect us?  Maybe whatever is on the other side of the planet is really dangerous, and the conspiracy knows this.  They don't say the Earth is flat because then people would try to find the other side, exposing themselves to the dangers.  They also don't explain that the Earth is flat but that the other side is dangerous, because sharing a planet with something so deadly might cause widespread panic.

Any thoughts?

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: No way you can possibly prove the earth is flat.
« on: February 06, 2008, 07:29:29 AM »
The writer proves through his "Zetetic" method that the local region which he performed the "experiments" is flat. He never proved the whole Earth was flat.

Well, yeah, but if he has proved that any region of the Earth is flat, then it isn't spherical, or even 'round.'

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Been lurking for a few months - decided to register...
« on: February 05, 2008, 10:21:42 AM »
You used "Goverment" and "credibility" in the same sentance, lol.

The government has less credibiltiy than anything else that exists, including the Flat Earth Society. 

 ;D

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Been lurking for a few months - decided to register...
« on: February 05, 2008, 07:35:37 AM »
The conspiracy is generally associated with one of two motives:

1. Stability.  Z already touched on this.  Essentially, the if the government broke out of the lie now, they'd lose all remaining credibility.  There would be public panic from some, and undeterrable anger from others.  We pay taxes to the government, and the government uses part of that money to fund the space agency NASA.  According to this conspiracy theory, NASA is a fraud whose only true purpose is to lie to us about the shape of the Earth and keep us ignorant.  So, our money is being taxed away from us inorder to help fund a lie that keeps us ignorant.  I can imagine the riot scenes now.

2. Money.  As I mentioned above, we pay taxes, and part of that is used to fund NASA.  In fact, their annual budget for 2007 was about $15 billion.  Since this money is not being used for space exploration, it is instead used for faking missions and photo editting, which costs a lot less than $15 billion.  The conspiracy gets the remainder between the cost of missions and the cost of faking them.

Now, sl0t3g, what else are you confused about?  Yuo haven't really specified which aspects of FET lose you.

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Hello
« on: February 03, 2008, 07:25:27 AM »
I suppose it'd be more accurate to say it is a forum that includes scientific discussion. Then again, that shouldn't hinder the utilization of the BoP.
I guess. I still think this site depends on a constantly shifting burden of proof to prevent either side from winning.

Do you have any evidence for this outlandish claim?

... Oh, wait...

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Origins
« on: January 31, 2008, 01:57:24 PM »
See what I'm getting at. Saying that an unknown mechanism is at work is just an easy answer and doesn't really explain anything. It's just a way of getting the question to go away.

What, exactly, caused the Big Bang (and in case you think you have an answer to that, what caused the effect that caused the Big Bang, and what caused that effect, and that one, and so on and so forth)?  Oh, it's an unknown to you?  Seeing as you've explained to me how somethng cannot be trusted if its origin is unknown, I guess Big Bang Theory is no longer credible.  And if the Big Bang Theory is no longer credible, there is no longer a credible explanation for the origin of the RE.  Since there is no longer any credible origin for RE or FE, I guess Earth just doesn't exist.

...

That is how I view your logic.  My logic is that science evolves.  Unknown != impossible.  We have explanations for things now that we didn't have explanations for a few hundred years ago.  Does that mean that the facts were different back then?  No.  We just didn't know them.  It is possible for the accurate explanation to be unknown, which means that relying on an unknown mechanism for speculation of theory is not wrong. 
In science, the Big Bang is used as a point of origin to explain many phenomenon, even though nobody knows for sure what caused the Big Bang, or what was there before it.  Therefore, in science, something with an unknown cause is used as an explanation.  Which is exactly what we're doing when speculating about the FE.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Origins
« on: January 31, 2008, 04:32:32 AM »
You're not going to be amazed by any of the replies you get.  The fact is, we don't know what caused the world to form.  An unknown mechanism must be responsible.

But, just because it is unknown does not mean it is impossible.  It could easily be that there is an answer, and we jsut don't know it yet.

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A thought.
« on: January 29, 2008, 10:51:59 PM »
Eh, I cooled off now. Got a little hot. Doesn't matter, but I still think that's the wrong way to put it. We've argued about this a lot Divito, which is the difference between possibility and probability. I told you before that such an attitude is defeatist, and I stand by that view. Divito says there is no such thing as an impossibility, and I say that there's a point where the extremely improbable may be considered, for our purposes, impossible. We keep running into this wall.

We both agree that some things are very improbable with out current knowledge of the way things are.  And we both agree that those things, however improbably, are still at least vaguely possible.  I am willing to explore possibilities, and it seems you are not.  That's the only difference, here, as far as I can tell. 

But here's the bottom line: You're trying to convince other people that the Earth is not flat.  You do not need to convince you - you already agree with you.  Because you are already convinced of an RE, your idea of convincing evidence for an RE is not relevant to the discussion.  We - or, at least, I - do not consider extreme improbabilities as impossibilities, and it seems Divito agrees on that front.  So, if you are trying to convince Divito (or me, or anyone else who thinks that way), you must accept that steep improbabilities cannot constitute impossibilities here.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I've worked out who's behind the conspiracy!
« on: January 29, 2008, 02:50:30 PM »
In before move to angry ranting/complete nonsense/lock.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A thought.
« on: January 29, 2008, 02:48:10 PM »
Dude, Fshy, I have to say, I certainly don't think you're dumb, but I never felt he implied that he knew of other ways... to me, he always was just saying it's possible that there are other ways we don't know about... just intervening here because it seems like thiso ne is getting unnecessarily heated...

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Just a thought...
« on: January 29, 2008, 02:14:16 PM »
Quote
Or a Flat Earth Questions and Clarification Board where people can go if they are confused by the FAQ... yeah, we need one of those...

I'm not digging through all of that, I just think the FAQ should be clear about the multiple theories and the fact that it's ok to pick which theories apply whenever. No offence to TheEngineer, he's done a great job, although maybe just a footnote or something?

No one's asking you to dig through anything.  If you're confused about something, ask there.

And we don't intentionally use different theories all of the time.  The trouble is, this is an evolving theory.  Not every FEer has the same answers to the same questions.

EDIT: Typos fixed.  Sorry about that, my keyboard spazzed.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Just a thought...
« on: January 29, 2008, 02:04:54 PM »
Looks like someone doesn't get it.

Looks like the FAQ needs better explanation.

Or a Flat Earth Questions and Clarification Board where people can go if they are confused by the FAQ... yeah, we need one of those...

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A thought.
« on: January 29, 2008, 02:00:16 PM »
Well, yes,
But, we both follow each other, and pretty much agree on everything but the specifics...

Well, essentially.  In my example of the man (who didn't exist, I know, bear with me) saying 'the universe will not exist in this specific way,' there are two distinct possibilities: he was right, and he was wrong.  He speculated that one possibility would not happen, therefore saying that one of quadrillions of other possibilities would happen.  Quadrillions to one odds say that he was right.  But he was wrong.  It actually turned out this way.  

Now, I know this man didn't exist.  But by the same principle, I could predict that the universe will exist a certain way in a billion years.  It's insanely unlikely that I'd end up right, but it is also possible.  Agreed?

I was having a go at the fact that FE theory needs a conspiracy theory, not at the particulars of its nature (as those can always shift and change to defeat any argument like that, anyway). :)

Ah, I see.

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A thought.
« on: January 29, 2008, 01:49:37 PM »
@ Fshy: My bad on the wording.  I'm sure you are aware of what I meant, though.  It is not impossible for the less likely event to happen.  

I mean, think about the Big Bang (before you say it, no I'm not saying I support the Big Bang now - whatever happened to shape the universe works just as well).  When matter was being strewn about randomly, there was an incredibly slim probability that the universe would end up in any specific formation.  With trillions of variables and quadrillions of possible outcomes, one could have thought, should they have existed, 'there is no way the universe will end up *insert description of how the universe is now.'  And yet, lo and behold, the universe is now the way it is now.

Now you should not assume that the less likely event is the truth, necessarily, but in speculation, you cannot take improbable and present it as impossible.

@ Fike: Fair enough, although I'm not exactly sure how you were having a go at the conspiracy...

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A thought.
« on: January 29, 2008, 01:38:36 PM »
But, at any rate, just because the possibility exists, doesn't mean I have to treat it so. It's more likely I'm in the matrix than the Earth being flat. Whether we like it or not, we deal with probabilities.

Well, you can deal with probabilities all you like, and I don't blame you.  But when speculating on whether or not conspiracies are possible, it is important to remember, at least somewhere in the back of your mind, that probabilities can be wrong.

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A thought.
« on: January 29, 2008, 01:34:07 PM »
Okay.  Fact remains that, if the drug exists, there is a 100% probability that it exists.  Redundant?  Clearly.  But if there is a chance that it exists, you cannot know for certain that it does not.  So, in speculation, it is possible.

Well I don't agree that that fact remains. When you bring a conspiracy the size of the (supposed) FE conspiracy into it, there can no 100% probabilities.

... You do not agree that, if something exists, it must exist?  Because that's all that I said...

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A thought.
« on: January 29, 2008, 01:22:49 PM »
I am not saying that I cannot joke around. I do have a sense of humor. I just wasn't sure if you guys were being childish or not when it came to debating.
Remember. I am new here and I do not know you all too well so I am going to make assumptions.

Fair enough, I did too at one point.  Just be warned: most of your assumptions will be wrong.   ;)

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A thought.
« on: January 29, 2008, 01:18:56 PM »
Sure...its possible...if possible merely means the odds of it existing are greater than zero...just believe me when I say that its probably equal to 1 google to the power negative googleplex...

Okay.  Fact remains that, if the drug exists, there is a 100% probability that it exists.  Redundant?  Clearly.  But if there is a chance that it exists, you cannot know for certain that it does not.  So, in speculation, it is possible.

It wouldn't work because you need to give all the astronauts the same memory. If you merely need to fake an alien encounter, its easy, because the person was alone, and so on; especially if they believe in aliens in the first place, and have a history of lunacy... But here, you know...

I've read an instance of five different people from various countries reporting the same extra terrestrial experience.  Thoughts?

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A thought.
« on: January 29, 2008, 01:07:43 PM »
There is a way to do it, however, which was my point, but not to the astronauts.

Why would it not work with astronauts?  I'm just curious here.

You're basically postulating that the conspiracy has covered up the fact that we are centuries further in biotechnology than it lets on.

Well, I'm saying that is a physical possibility. 

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A thought.
« on: January 29, 2008, 12:57:09 PM »
t3h phuxxor:

I'd like to note something in this discussion. Zero G simulators don't exist. The only way to simulate zero G is to be in freefall, and, as Jimbo and I calculated independently, you have a little over 2 minutes of freefall time before you crash. Therefore, the only way to get an astronaut into a zero G environment for longer is to be in orbit.

Well, theoretically, it is possible to fly into outer space but not sustain it, and then you might experience freefall for longer.  But that's beside the point.  They're drugged.  Who knows what sort of hallucinations they experience.  Hell, they could just be drugged in a way that alters their memories, and really, they never did anything at all. 

You're right.  The Earth is flat.

Fixed.

:P

No, seriously...

"There is no drug in existence which creates fake memories, which is insanely difficult, due to the complexity of the brain. Has someone been watching too much Manchurian Candidate recently?"

I'm sorry to be a pedant, but are you familiar with every substance and combonation of substances in existence?  Because if you are, I will believe that no such drug is possible.  If your knowledge is limited in any way, I'm afraid I cannot take your word on this.  :(

o_O
Well that is mature.

Welcome to the FES, my friend.

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A thought.
« on: January 29, 2008, 12:42:40 PM »
t3h phuxxor:

@your first two replies: I am not arguing that the Earth is flat.  I am arguing that it is possible.  So, when you say neither of us can prove anything, you're basically right.  I was just saying that acquiring proof may be extremely difficult.  But, if the FEers are right, it'd be more difficult for them to prove it.  If the REers are right, the government has nothing to hide, so proof shouldn't be hard to come by.  If the FEers are right, they've got a conspiracy holding them down, making their job for proof a lot harder.

@why would I let money come between me and the truth: Well, first off, if they were bribing me, I'd already have the truth.  And if I turned down they're bribe, they might have other means of silencing me.  I mean, the government, in this day and age especially, can easily label someone as a terrorist and say "they infiltrated the government and went for assassination, we had to kill them!"  I'd be silenced then and dead, whereas I could be silenced and wealthy.  I'd take the bribe.

I'd like to note something in this discussion. Zero G simulators don't exist. The only way to simulate zero G is to be in freefall, and, as Jimbo and I calculated independently, you have a little over 2 minutes of freefall time before you crash. Therefore, the only way to get an astronaut into a zero G environment for longer is to be in orbit.

Well, theoretically, it is possible to fly into outer space but not sustain it, and then you might experience freefall for longer.  But that's beside the point.  They're drugged.  Who knows what sort of hallucinations they experience.  Hell, they could just be drugged in a way that alters their memories, and really, they never did anything at all. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14