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 - Ecthelion

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What now?
« on: April 22, 2016, 07:58:37 AM »
Here is my view from the other side of the coin. Just because we are told rockets take satellites are into space where they orbit the earth doesn't make it necessarily so. If one is to believe Occam's razor approach to this, then the technology of High Altitude Platforms, (HAPs), would be the best choice. HAPs have been around for many years before satellites. The idea is simple enough. Rather than use a rocket that is very costly and has many parts that can fail or even blow up at launch, why not simply float the electronic package up to a high altitude in the earth's atmosphere? That would make a lot more sense to me and NASA wouldn't have to be involved. What you think is a satellite bringing you TV service could very well be a HAP floating in stratosphere. Be honest, wouldn't that make more sense to you?

Short post, since I am on my mobile:
This is a misuse of Occam's razor. In order to invoke Occam's razor, the theory must be general as well as simple. Partial theories cannot be put against general theories in this way. Remember that Occam's razor is based on the predictive power of the theory, so it cares about scope as well as simplicity.

Your theory does not account for all observations. Whether or not it's simpler is debatable, but irrelevant. So no, it does not make more sense to me.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« on: April 22, 2016, 01:01:00 AM »
Sandokhan might be a brilliant genius and might have convinced me that the earth is flat if all his posts weren't under the category of TL:DR

It's not the length that is the problem, it's the total lack of structure.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Einstein debunked: energy is not conserved :)
« on: April 22, 2016, 12:14:40 AM »

When objects crash, they usually deform. Deforming costs energy.

If they deform very little (like Billiard balls) they move away in opposite directions after the crash. In your example, A and B would not stop dead if you crashed them head on.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Genuine question
« on: April 21, 2016, 10:13:15 PM »
I'm not in a position to rule things out yet. I just know that for many years I fell in that trap of believing everything I was taught was true. I'm not going to be so quick to accept any longer. I just look for the possibility of another side of an issue. If I get convinced one way or the other, I may rule one side out.

Isn't "being convinced" a result of ruling everything else out? By what mechanism would truth suddenly emerge just by piling observation upon observation? The amount of possibilities is infinite. The amount of evidence required for certainity is, therefore, also infinite. The only way to move forward is to make guesses and rule out those that don't fit.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What now?
« on: April 21, 2016, 10:10:05 PM »
Okay, I didn't see the dots. I'm sorry, that still doesn't convince me. Answer this for me. What is it about satellites that convinces you they exist other then NASA say they do?

What convinces me is, in short, that it makes sense. It explains the observations. What happens in this world - all my observations - is consistent with the fact that there are satellites. That includes the observation that people act and talk like satellites exist, including NASA. I have no reason to discount NASA, or anyone else, as a liar prima facie. Every other theory would have to somehow account for all the observations - pictures, like the one posted above, books, testimony, the orientation of satellite dishes etc. etc. Not least the fact that large parts of the history of the 20th century would have to be explained. I have never even seen such a theory attempted - have you?

Perhaps my reasoning can be further clarified by this counter question: What is the likelyhood that, in a world without satellites, everything would look the way it looks in our world?

We know people can't change God's words but May attribute different meanings on them.

Since all those books have been written by humans this is a very odd statement. Which is to say it's par for the course.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Genuine question
« on: April 21, 2016, 12:19:51 PM »
You guys act like satellites are the only way to communicate. We where communicating long before satellites were thought of. I have my doubts it is all because I have seen many thing that leads me to believe that way. Maybe I'm wrong and you are right, but I'm not going to rule out that there are many other ways to do something.

If you don't rule things out, how do you propose to arrive at a conclusion? Eventually you'll have to look at what is likely, not just what's theoretically possible.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What now?
« on: April 21, 2016, 12:18:03 PM »
Do you honestly think I'm so naive to believe that you are showing me satellites streaking across the sky. Show me a real picture of one, I want to believe.

In case you were confused about that: The moving "streaks" are not supposed to be the satellites - the stationairy dots are. They are hard to see at first, but if you look for a few seconds they are visible.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« on: April 21, 2016, 05:21:54 AM »
...a load of baseless claims...

Did you just reply to a request more than nine years after it was made? That's the most epic necro I have ever seen!

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Celestial Ocean Theory explained
« on: April 21, 2016, 04:56:25 AM »
Don't NASA and the satanist authorities deceive any longer! We can not stand back and let them perpetuate their heathen lies. Hopefully, by showing you how the celestial objects work, I can convince some of you that the Flat Earth is the truth.

You should have been a bit more subtle. They'll be onto you in no time with this. Then again I have been surprised about how much people can get away with here.

Since you and many others have said I live in a basement, could you give me the mathematical formula to determine how many tree's I would need to create oxygen in there with the door shut to live. Oh, and do not forget to allow for them to breath oxygen at night.

Since basements are dark, trees probably won't help you.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: PROOF that NASA is Satanic!
« on: April 21, 2016, 12:57:45 AM »


Nasa was founded by the heir of Slytherin. The Chamber of Secrets is actually on the moon. One of the Astronauts was a parselmouth, send there to uncover it's ancient secrets. Armed with this power, Nasa has since silently subjugated the world.

If a cloud can drop 2500mm of rain in 48 hours how much does it weigh?
And do try to keep up, nobody is interested in how fast you can jump.

No idea. How many clouds does it take to fill an ocean?

Correct, at 900kph this tends to happen.

I don't jump with 900 kph. But since f=m*a, and the ocean is certainly more than a thousand times heavier than a cloud, .9 kph ought to suffice.

Is it because when they hit the millions of tonnes of water hanging in the cloud at 900kph it smashes them to pieces?

Just like the billions of tonnes of water in the ocean smash you to pieces when you jump into it.

That works both ways.

No, doing it the other way round (premise - evidence - conclusion) is fine.

That we don't live on a ball, and you need a ball for it to work.

By starting with your conclusion as the premise, you may indeed throw out whatever evidence doesn't suit you.

Here's a long answer to your question. If you're in a hurry you can click on the fourth and fifth black bulletpoints.

(When I said fourth and fifth it reminded me of the "hallelujah" song).

It seems to always go back to "we cannot know or understand God's reasons."

I suppose this works well enough as a justification if you already believe, but from an outside perspective it's a very weird "defence". Why exactly, if we are Gods perfect creation, do we not understand? Doesn't perfection also include understanding Gods plans and purposes?

And if the answer to that is also "I don't know", then one would have to ask if you do know anything about that God you worship in the first place? Your religion professes all these positive attributes of God, but at the same time claims complete ignorance of it's goals, plans and methods. If you're this ignorant, how do you even know what exactly you are worshipping? Certainly I wouldn't be convinced, if I had not already been raised in the faith, that your God not only exists, but is a true, benevolent God if at the same time you cannot tell me anything about his plans or his reasons. I wouldn't even vote for a politician based on this little information, let alone risik my (supposedly) immortal sould for it.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Spinning Of The Earth Is Impossible.
« on: April 20, 2016, 12:28:27 PM »
Because we think everything else in the universe is spinning we must be spinning too. That is not a good enough reason. The moon isn't spinning, there is no proof it does. We only assume it spins because we simply think the earth is spinning and the moon is in perfect harmony with us. The other planets may spin, but so far we haven't discovered life on them either. Maybe life can't exist on a spinning ball.

If everything else is spinning and a sphere, then reason does indeed tell us that the earth is too unless we have specific reason to doubt it. "Maybe this", "maybe that" aren't proper arguments in the context of empirical knowledge. The earth remains a spinning ball until you have a better theory that works under all circumstances.

Flat Earth General / Re: Round and Flat Bigotry
« on: April 20, 2016, 12:17:45 PM »
You or anybody else is not really the judge of what is reasonable to another man. It is after all "I think therefore I am" not "You think therefore I am." I feel the flat earth is aligned with reason.

Judge? No I am not judging you. I simply treat you as my equal it terms of rationality, and by that token I can assume you, too, are rational. And based on that shared rationality, I conclude that you are wrong. Worse, that you deny the very basis of rationality on which we both stand. Saying what one considers true is not judgemental. Calling action, or acting oneself, on those truths is not hybris.

Here you are putting the weight of your intolerance supposedly on reason.

Are you saying I should be tolerant of what I consider false?

There is nothing about zeteticism that would leave Truth lost, in method or in its practice. I'm afraid you are simply against the idea of *your* truth being lost, another silly worry - though one that exposes you. Every culture since the dawn of time has thought they held truth more so than every other culture since the dawn of time. What makes you so special? Why is your view privileged?

I am not demanding special deference or privileges for my opinion. I simply consider myself correct, just as you consider yourself correct. You asked why there was opposition to the FES. I gave you my reasons. You act as if me arguing for my position makes me intolerant and vain. You are the one who is acting like a luminary, like the only seeing man among the blind.

If you truly aren't worried about the impact of the FES, then what is the warrant then for intolerance? Is it because we can make microwave ovens? Or perhaps medical advances? These modern conveniences have done little to better man in his everyday. Even if you are right that its anti-science, you still have a far fucking long way to show that makes intolerance towards it a good idea and acceptable.

Medical advances "have done little to better man in his everyday"? You are talking about people dying, you realize that? For whatever reason you want to tear down the progress of humanity, why?

Anyways, I am not exactly running a crusade here. I am just writing posts on an internet forum, so let's keep things in perspective.

If you think we are institutional irrationality, you really are blind to what the Flat Earth Society is and what it represents and what Zeteticism represents and means.

So you say, but your claim has no substance.

However, I digress a bit. In the OP, I'm talking specifically about the personal beliefs of flat earthers, related to or not related to the Society, and them being abused on a personal level. This has nothing to do with the Society, or the organization around the many beliefs turning up concerning the flat earth. Sure, you can be against the Society and perhaps maybe intolerant of it. This sits better with me, but ultimately I feel its wrong for other reasons. However, here I am really worried about those who go out to abuse people who aren't officially associated with us and yet still believe the Earth is flat - like that English mother. Or the poor kid that likely got torn apart by his school. Or that Flat Earth girl folks some ass led to believe they were dating on the internet and ended up just making a public fool of her on a youtube channel.

People can be terrible to one another. That has nothing to do with what they believe. You are asking the most basic question of human society, why do we make each other suffer?

Its one thing to be against an organization. Its an entirely different thing to abuse its members or folks not even associated with the organization on a personal level.

Of course, but that's not happening to a large extent on this forum, so I wonder why you bring it up here? What can we do?

So in short no. Its wrong to be intolerant of it as an organization [nb]though its fine to disagree with it and voice said concern, argue against it[/nb], and its wrong to be intolerant to those who believe in a flat earth personally. Just because you claim to validate your intolerance with supposed reason, there is no reason we should think for a second you [nb]in the general case, not you specifically I hope[/nb] are any less of a bigot. Great. Another person with 'God on his side', or Truth if it is more palatable for you. Or Science. Whatever you want to call what you rest your bigotry on. If you want to use reason to defeat us, then it should be easy. I mean you supposedly have truth on your side, don't you? Why is intolerance then justified. Intolerance always sits with ignorance, not truth. This is unavoidable, and you know this.

Tolerance and basic human respect are two different things. I don't need to be tolerant of your opinions in order to treat you with respect. One should do that with everyone, no matter the gulf between them. I think you gravely misunderstand me if you think I condone abuse on a personal level. And I suppose I gravely misunderstood you if that is what you were mostly concerned about in this thread.

I can just as easily make the argument that its fine for me to bigot academics because they are against reason, destructive to reason, and destructive to the scientific method itself as evidenced by historical record that shows the gap between method and practice in Academia, that shows academic and intellectual dishonesty, and so on. So it should then sit very well with you if I were to go up to academics everyday they go to work and yell profanities and very personal and specific insults to them, perhaps throw beakers at them. That sorta thing. IN reality, its fine for me to argue against Academia, but bigoting academics is far from useful, moral, or reasonable. I see it has a point of view, I disagree with it, but I don't abuse Academics themselves.

That's not bigotry, that's just being a dick. I don't think anyone here will disgree with you that abusing people is bad. The question in your OP seemed to be more along the lines of asking why people so vehemently opposed the FES. But "oppose" and "abuse" are not the same thing. If you claim that opposing the FES is bigotry, you claim that we oppose you with a religious, hateful fervor. But, as I tried to communicate to you in what I wrote, there is good reason for those that don't believe in Zeteticism to oppose it vehemently.

What your trying to say here is,
The air around the balloon weighs jack shit, but the balloon weighs a bee's dick less than jack shit so gravity is now not strong enough to pull the balloon to earth.
Gotcha, sounds a bit magical.

Because the air is exempt from gravity, right?

I like to think of it more as an observation.

You mean you observed that things with a lot of mass are heavy, and things with little mass are light? Fascinating!

The Lounge / Re: Is Intikam Papa Legba?
« on: April 20, 2016, 12:39:36 AM »
His rants and "insults" never canceled out his arguments. They were solid.

Pity he's gone.

I disagree. I think his demeanour very much canceled out his arguments. They got lost in all the shouting and dancing, the insults and the messing with the post order. Arguments without structure are just ranting.

I agree with Intikam.

Religions that claim that just believing makes you go to heaven always seemed weird to me. If God made arbitrary decisions like that, why would anyone feel like worshipping God in the first place?

The air moves with car when the car's up closed. If it is a drophead like the earth, the air hits in your face.

The earth isn't closed? What is being added and/or removed?

Ahahah you have some ideas just are nonsence.

Can you explain what happens  at the intersection surface on the air and the space? Where is your famous the "diffusion" working to?  ;D

No, we cannot explain, because we'd have to use particuls and then you'd be mad at us again. I suppose we just have to treat the atmosphere as solid. So, since there are no particuls, what is diffusion?

Heavy things don't fall off the bottom of the globe, only light things do such as a child's helium party balloon. Gravity only works on heavy things.

The Globe has a bottom? Is that the reason the moon always faces the earth, so it can look at it's bottom? I mean I always suspected the man in the moon was kind of a perv, but...
So the term "Aussies are down under" was made up by FEer's was it?
By the way, nice dodge on the balloon floaty thing.

No idea who made it up, does that mean Australia is the bottom of the earth? That sounds a bit harsh to me. How would you even know where the bottom is?

No idea why you think I would have to dodge a floating balloon, unless it's below me. As you said, they always float up, so you seldom need to worry about them hitting you.

Heavy things don't fall off the bottom of the globe, only light things do such as a child's helium party balloon. Gravity only works on heavy things.

The Globe has a bottom? Is that the reason the moon always faces the earth, so it can look at it's bottom? I mean I always suspected the man in the moon was kind of a perv, but...

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What now?
« on: April 19, 2016, 11:21:14 PM »
This is a trap that both scientist and people of faith fall into. I laugh when a scientific atheist (such as Hawkins) says "Through Science I have proven GOD does NOT exist" . I could just as easily say "through FAITH I have proven Science does not exists".

Both statements are equally meaningless.

True. But there is a third category.

In the world of speculation, the scientist is the cartographer of the land. He has the tools and the methods to make the most accurate maps of all there is to be found. But he may not venture forth to the sea, not even look at it, or he may become lost in it. All his tools become useless once he leaves the land of the empirical, and the winds may blow him wherever.

The philosopher, then, is both more free and more circumscribed than the former. He may walk the land and sail the seas, to measure for the scientist the size and boundaries of his domain. But while he sees the land, he must leave the making of maps to the scientist. And he, too, must not venture out of sight of the land. For without the firm foundation of possible experience, he will loose all his way and become lost at sea, unable to return.

Only the theologian dares venture forth out onto the open seas of speculation, without support or instruments, to let faith steer his boat. But while he is, in doing so, the freeest of them all, he also abandons all hope of ever knowing a map of his surroundings. He can only hope that he has chosen the right course, never once knowing that this is so. Neither the scientist nor the philosopher can tell him whether he is right or wrong, and he cannot help them improve their maps.

Flat Earth General / Re: Round and Flat Bigotry
« on: April 19, 2016, 11:11:25 PM »
I get it. Its not the most popular idea in the world. Its against scientific knowledge; it might appear to be born out of ignorance, and I'll admit at times and for some it is. Of course there is more to it than that, but I don't expect everybody to get that. Some people - hell most - are bound to only take it for its face value. I don't expect everybody to get religion either, or a great many other things. Different strokes, different folks.

I don't think you get it. Not fully. Flat Earth theory isn't simply a belief that one could tolerate. It's an anti-scientific, and by that same token, anti-epistic movement. It goes against reason. One might be tolerant of irrational behaviors on a personal scale - we all have them. But being tolerant of institutional irrationality is different. If  Zeteticism became an accepted way of thinking, truth would be lost. If one values truth, one has to oppose such a movement. I am sure you can relate to that sentiment, even if you think you are on the right side and I am in the wrong.

Not that I am personally worried about the impact of the FES on public thinking. There's much worse offenders in that regard. But an appeal for tolerance is misplaced here. One can claim tolerance for their personal religious beliefs, but not for their philosophical systems or scientific theories. In the latter cases, falsehood is to be opposed.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Earth Debunk Why The Sky Is Blue?
« on: April 19, 2016, 02:18:09 AM »
I told before that you can explain everthing by particules.

You used the words that "The molecules of the air" explains you havn't any argumant except nonsences.

Particle literally just means "the parts that make up the whole". Are things not made of parts in your world?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8