Re: ham sandwich

Note that one of the reasons for believing in a flat earth is that it looks flat. If I were to look around then I would not believe in air, atmosphere and oxygen, but those things do happen to exist. What about atoms Roundy, do they exist? I can't see them in front of me, so using the basis that you use, they don't exist either. This argument is moot because none of you will ever accept proof of a round earth unless you see for yourself, at which point when you become converted the rest of the believers of a FE will say you were paid off.

This is untrue as we can feel air as we can see the shape of the earth.

And you came here at some point as well. I fail to see how that response has any validity in regards to an educated discussion or debate. You see because you don't use logic, you use dead ends to explain your belief, almost all of it you cannot prove.

I saw I was ambushed by a couple noobs after I went to bed last night and I just wanted to respond to this since Althalus opened this thread and the last one was locked for some reason.

Warddogg and I were having a decent discussion going about the plausibility of the UA.  I think I demonstrated its plausibility and he failed to demonstrate its implausibility.  Warddogg said it was a stalemate.  Obviously this means I proved my point.  I pointed out that Warddogg came here, meaning that the burden was on him to disprove our theories.  Since he couldn't that's obviously a victory for FE.  See, Cthulhu, the fact that he came here and is arguing against our theory is a reasonable thing to point out after all.

It's too bad Cthulhu doesn't have the attention span to read through a thread before he comments on it or he would have seen that I used nothing but logic to explain my belief about the UA.  It's also too bad that he probably took the time to sign up for the forum just to make two weak posts and probably won't be back because now he won't see me pointing out he was wrong; he left the forum thinking he made some kind of deep and valid point, despite the fact that it was nothing but the same overblown rhetoric that all of the weaker REers who sign up here tend to use.

Oh well.  I'm still willing to continue this debate with WD, anyway.  I just wanted to know if he understood why the thread was a victory for FE.  If not, I invite him to explain why here.

I understand your reasoning for it.  But like I said neither theory UA or Gravity can be proved 100% so its a stalemate.  Both theories are plausible. You are absolutely correct.  I cannot prove its implausibility.  Do to the fact that you deny all the evidence that says otherwise.

Have you ever seen a baby pigeon?  They must not exist. And without proof of them existing then I would say thats a victory for the No Baby Pigeon Theory (NBPT) then.  See how that sounds?

Have you ever seen a baby pigeon?  They must not exist. And without proof of them existing then I would say thats a victory for the No Baby Pigeon Theory (NBPT) then.  See how that sounds?

We did not join a forum that propounds such a theory with the intention of proving it false. You did...and you failed. That is why this is a victory for FE. Roundy was more than generous in his explanation.

I understand your reasoning for it.  But like I said neither theory UA or Gravity can be proved 100% so its a stalemate.  Both theories are plausible. You are absolutely correct.  I cannot prove its implausibility.  Do to the fact that you deny all the evidence that says otherwise.

Have you ever seen a baby pigeon?  They must not exist. And without proof of them existing then I would say thats a victory for the No Baby Pigeon Theory (NBPT) then.  See how that sounds?

I saw a baby pigeon on TV once.  Wow, what a weird thing to reference.

What evidence is there that the earth is not accelerating?

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 31, 2008, 10:32:33 AM

I understand your reasoning for it.  But like I said neither theory UA or Gravity can be proved 100% so its a stalemate.  Both theories are plausible. You are absolutely correct.  I cannot prove its implausibility.  Do to the fact that you deny all the evidence that says otherwise.

Have you ever seen a baby pigeon?  They must not exist. And without proof of them existing then I would say thats a victory for the No Baby Pigeon Theory (NBPT) then.  See how that sounds?

I saw a baby pigeon on TV once.  Wow, what a weird thing to reference.

What evidence is there that the earth is not accelerating?

Because its a globe rotating around the sun and a pretty much constant speed.

Shown by this http://science.howstuffworks.com/46010-solar-system-explained.htm

and this


and this
http://science.howstuffworks.com/mars-rover.htm

and this


and this
http://aerospace.wcc.hawaii.edu/shape.html

how many more do you want?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 31, 2008, 10:54:03 AM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 31, 2008, 10:32:33 AM

I understand your reasoning for it.  But like I said neither theory UA or Gravity can be proved 100% so its a stalemate.  Both theories are plausible. You are absolutely correct.  I cannot prove its implausibility.  Do to the fact that you deny all the evidence that says otherwise.

Have you ever seen a baby pigeon?  They must not exist. And without proof of them existing then I would say thats a victory for the No Baby Pigeon Theory (NBPT) then.  See how that sounds?

I saw a baby pigeon on TV once.  Wow, what a weird thing to reference.

What evidence is there that the earth is not accelerating?

Because its a globe rotating around the sun and a pretty much constant speed.

Shown by this http://science.howstuffworks.com/46010-solar-system-explained.htm

and this


and this
http://science.howstuffworks.com/mars-rover.htm

and this


and this
http://aerospace.wcc.hawaii.edu/shape.html

how many more do you want?

Conspiracy propaganda is not evidence.

Tell me then, what would be?  Something I can do...and or afford.  Not build a rocket and go to space.  Not measure some long distance on a flat surface.  I live in hawaii so there is no standing water for 5-10 miles.  What can I do?

Tell me then, what would be?  Something I can do...and or afford.  Not build a rocket and go to space.  Not measure some long distance on a flat surface.  I live in hawaii so there is no standing water for 5-10 miles.  What can I do?

I don't know.  It would take some kind of mad genius to prove something that isn't true!

Well apparently it was done with the FET so I dont see how that is so far fetched for you.

Quote from: Cthulhu The Second

And you came here at some point as well. I fail to see how that response has any validity in regards to an educated discussion or debate. You see because you don't use logic, you use dead ends to explain your belief, almost all of it you cannot prove.

I saw I was ambushed by a couple noobs after I went to bed last night and I just wanted to respond to this since Althalus opened this thread and the last one was locked for some reason.

Warddogg and I were having a decent discussion going about the plausibility of the UA.  I think I demonstrated its plausibility and he failed to demonstrate its implausibility.  Warddogg said it was a stalemate.  Obviously this means I proved my point.  I pointed out that Warddogg came here, meaning that the burden was on him to disprove our theories.  Since he couldn't that's obviously a victory for FE.  See, Cthulhu, the fact that he came here and is arguing against our theory is a reasonable thing to point out after all.

It's too bad Cthulhu doesn't have the attention span to read through a thread before he comments on it or he would have seen that I used nothing but logic to explain my belief about the UA.  It's also too bad that he probably took the time to sign up for the forum just to make two weak posts and probably won't be back because now he won't see me pointing out he was wrong; he left the forum thinking he made some kind of deep and valid point, despite the fact that it was nothing but the same overblown rhetoric that all of the weaker REers who sign up here tend to use.

Oh well.  I'm still willing to continue this debate with WD, anyway.  I just wanted to know if he understood why the thread was a victory for FE.  If not, I invite him to explain why here.

Cthulhu was talking about the forum in general, not that specific topic. its funny how when we use your peoples logic, the thread gets locked. do i need to post the picture of the heart again or what.

do i need to post the picture of the heart again or what.

I see this argument everyday...  "let me say something outrageous that I know isn't true.  My theory is false so yours must be too!"

The nonsense you are spewing is not based on observation, is not supported by the facts, and both you and I know it to be false.  The Earth, on the other hand, remains quite flat, and all of the evidence supports this conclusion.


Regarding acceleration versus gravity......

Acceleration:
The "gravitational" effects which acceleration exerts on a body is observed everday when you drive to work, when you move your body, when you use a centrifuge...  this is as intuitive and well tested as it is possible for a physical phenomenon to be.

Gravity:
Other than our attraction to Earth (which could be acceleration), this is not observed every day.  This is not well tested.  All attempts to measure gravitational constant G are highly inaccurate and often contradictory.

Gravitons have never been observed.  Probably never will be.


Consider this thought experiment:
When you drop a feather and a hammer in a vacuum, both objects fall at identical rates.  Identical.  Isn't it easier to simply state the objects are at rest and the Earth accelerates upward?

Gravity must propose to act on both objects with different forces according to their mass.

Gravity fails when you do the same test with a light beam (which has no mass).  But it has been proven that the accelerating Earth catches up with light beams.

Conspiracy propaganda is not evidence.

And Zetetic propaganda is evidence?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 31, 2008, 11:02:12 AM

Conspiracy propaganda is not evidence.

And Zetetic propaganda is evidence?

Measuring the shape of the Earth directly is evidence.  Photographs from one organization are questionable.

Just as you would question proof of god if it came from Peter Popoff (who was arrested for scamming people for money under religious pretense).

I see this argument everyday...  "let me say something outrageous that I know isn't true.  My theory is false so yours must be too!"

This is a commonly used debate tactic known as a straw man argument. It is used when people are to inept to see any form of argument against them as "real".

Quote from: lived_eht_asan on May 31, 2008, 01:28:33 PM

I see this argument everyday...  "let me say something outrageous that I know isn't true.  My theory is false so yours must be too!"

This is a commonly used debate tactic known as a straw man argument. 

Exactly.  And you just used it.

 

Are you proposing that you seriously don't believe oxygen exists?

Or that you honestly believe the heart picture posted is what a heart looks like?

Or could it be that you are making ridiculous arguments, which you and I both know to be false and then asserting that because your argument is ridiculous, ours must be too?

Thats what I thought.

prove to me that hearts dont look like that

LOL.  And the fallacy continues.   

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 31, 2008, 10:25:07 AM

Quote from: Cthulhu The Second

And you came here at some point as well. I fail to see how that response has any validity in regards to an educated discussion or debate. You see because you don't use logic, you use dead ends to explain your belief, almost all of it you cannot prove.

I saw I was ambushed by a couple noobs after I went to bed last night and I just wanted to respond to this since Althalus opened this thread and the last one was locked for some reason.

Warddogg and I were having a decent discussion going about the plausibility of the UA.  I think I demonstrated its plausibility and he failed to demonstrate its implausibility.  Warddogg said it was a stalemate.  Obviously this means I proved my point.  I pointed out that Warddogg came here, meaning that the burden was on him to disprove our theories.  Since he couldn't that's obviously a victory for FE.  See, Cthulhu, the fact that he came here and is arguing against our theory is a reasonable thing to point out after all.

It's too bad Cthulhu doesn't have the attention span to read through a thread before he comments on it or he would have seen that I used nothing but logic to explain my belief about the UA.  It's also too bad that he probably took the time to sign up for the forum just to make two weak posts and probably won't be back because now he won't see me pointing out he was wrong; he left the forum thinking he made some kind of deep and valid point, despite the fact that it was nothing but the same overblown rhetoric that all of the weaker REers who sign up here tend to use.

Oh well.  I'm still willing to continue this debate with WD, anyway.  I just wanted to know if he understood why the thread was a victory for FE.  If not, I invite him to explain why here.

Cthulhu was talking about the forum in general, not that specific topic.

I was talking about the forum in general too. 

prove to me that hearts dont look like that

You are an idiot.  You do not believe hearts look like that.  But guess what?  I can read your mind, so let me explain the argument that you are very poorly trying to make:

(1)  Flat Earth theory is an assertion based on one fact, that the Earth looks flat.
(2)  I can make a wild theory based on based on one observed fact, and it will be clear to everyone that my wild theory is false.
(3)  Therefore, Flat Earth theory is false.


Step (1) is a false claim. Flat Earth theory is based on much gathered evidence about the direct shape of the earth.
Step (2) is also a poor link.  Even the "one" observation you list is not comparable.  The earth looks flat from every vantage point, every day.

Even if step (1) and (2) were true, you could not claim step (3)!!

So STFU.

Gravity:
Other than our attraction to Earth (which could be acceleration), this is not observed every day.  This is not well tested.  All attempts to measure gravitational constant G are highly inaccurate and often contradictory.

Gravitons have never been observed.  Probably never will be.


Consider this thought experiment:
When you drop a feather and a hammer in a vacuum, both objects fall at identical rates.  Identical.  Isn't it easier to simply state the objects are at rest and the Earth accelerates upward?

Gravity must propose to act on both objects with different forces according to their mass.

Gravity fails when you do the same test with a light beam (which has no mass).  But it has been proven that the accelerating Earth catches up with light beams.

You have no idea man..  G constant has been measured quite well. We can explain the motion of planets and moons in the solar system quite accurate. As an example to show you gravity theory success, Neptuno has been discovered taking into account solely Urano's observed motion and Newton's law of universal gravitation ..
 
You don't understand equivalence principle, you can't figure out whether you are in a gravitational field (a curved space-time) or in a accelerated frame of reference, so what you said about lights beams in a gravitational field is wrong. According to Einstein theory of Relativity space-time curvature (gravity) does affect light beams, .. This has been measured by Arthur Eddington in 1919 during a solar ecllipse

And gravitons are hypothetical.. General Relativity doesn't need them

The point of this discussion was the comparison of acceleration vs "gravity"

Acceleration works much better.

Hello, I locked the ham sandwich thread because our logic was just too much for the fe'rs. Whenever we made a logig statement that could have proven that EVEY CLAIM made by fe-res was wrong, the responded in "read the FAQ" or something along those lines,

so I decided to just end it on what was right.

And now the fe-rs have made another ham thread, and we've owned the fe-rs again?


NOTHING CAN BEAT SIMPLE LOGIC

Quote from: EarthIsFlatAndXenuExisted on May 31, 2008, 01:59:59 PM

prove to me that hearts dont look like that

You are an idiot.  You do not believe hearts look like that.  But guess what?  I can read your mind, so let me explain the argument that you are very poorly trying to make:

(1)  Flat Earth theory is an assertion based on one fact, that the Earth looks flat.
(2)  I can make a wild theory based on based on one observed fact, and it will be clear to everyone that my wild theory is false.
(3)  Therefore, Flat Earth theory is false.


Step (1) is a false claim. Flat Earth theory is based on much gathered evidence about the direct shape of the earth.
Step (2) is also a poor link.  Even the "one" observation you list is not comparable.  The earth looks flat from every vantage point, every day.

Even if step (1) and (2) were true, you could not claim step (3)!!

So STFU.

no i have another reason why i believe all hearts look like that. because my 6 year old cousin has a "Lets Play Doctor" toy kit and it comes with an x-ray thing and she put it on my chest (where my heart is) and thats the image that showed up.

all hearts look like the picture i posted.

Quote from: lived_eht_asan on May 31, 2008, 02:06:03 PM

Quote from: EarthIsFlatAndXenuExisted on May 31, 2008, 01:59:59 PM

prove to me that hearts dont look like that

You are an idiot.  You do not believe hearts look like that.  But guess what?  I can read your mind, so let me explain the argument that you are very poorly trying to make:

(1)  Flat Earth theory is an assertion based on one fact, that the Earth looks flat.
(2)  I can make a wild theory based on based on one observed fact, and it will be clear to everyone that my wild theory is false.
(3)  Therefore, Flat Earth theory is false.


Step (1) is a false claim. Flat Earth theory is based on much gathered evidence about the direct shape of the earth.
Step (2) is also a poor link.  Even the "one" observation you list is not comparable.  The earth looks flat from every vantage point, every day.

Even if step (1) and (2) were true, you could not claim step (3)!!

So STFU.

no i have another reason why i believe all hearts look like that. because my 6 year old cousin has a "Lets Play Doctor" toy kit and it comes with an x-ray thing and she put it on my chest (where my heart is) and thats the image that showed up.

all hearts look like the picture i posted.

I just noticed your signature... makes me think a little

Quote from: Cthulhu the Second on May 25, 2008, 01:07:38 AM

Note that one of the reasons for believing in a flat earth is that it looks flat. If I were to look around then I would not believe in air, atmosphere and oxygen, but those things do happen to exist. What about atoms Roundy, do they exist? I can't see them in front of me, so using the basis that you use, they don't exist either. This argument is moot because none of you will ever accept proof of a round earth unless you see for yourself, at which point when you become converted the rest of the believers of a FE will say you were paid off.

This is untrue as we can feel air as we can see the shape of the earth.

I can feel gravity and I can see the roundness of the earth.

See where there is no logic in producing a stalemate. Only cold hard evidence besides subjective belief can prove a flat earth or round earth.


And trust me, we have proof of a round earth. Just scroll upwards until you SEE a picture of it.

So you lose and we win.

Cheers,
=PS

PS: How many more boring subjective arguments will be generated from what I just said?

Quote from: Althalus on May 31, 2008, 06:49:05 AM

Quote from: Cthulhu the Second on May 25, 2008, 01:07:38 AM

Note that one of the reasons for believing in a flat earth is that it looks flat. If I were to look around then I would not believe in air, atmosphere and oxygen, but those things do happen to exist. What about atoms Roundy, do they exist? I can't see them in front of me, so using the basis that you use, they don't exist either. This argument is moot because none of you will ever accept proof of a round earth unless you see for yourself, at which point when you become converted the rest of the believers of a FE will say you were paid off.

This is untrue as we can feel air as we can see the shape of the earth.

I can feel gravity and I can see the roundness of the earth.

See where there is no logic in producing a stalemate. Only cold hard evidence besides subjective belief can prove a flat earth or round earth.


And trust me, we have proof of a round earth. Just scroll upwards until you SEE a picture of it.

So you lose and we win.

Cheers,
=PS

PS: How many more boring subjective arguments will be generated from what I just said?

Exactly 5

and yer, we have picture proof, isn't that enough?

***your reply***


You: oooooooooh, prove it, whaaaaah.

 Me: the picture

You: it's photo shopped

Me: no it isn't

You: it's in the FAQ

Me: The FAQ is BS

You: no it isn't

Me ...



It's like arguing to a kid.

Kid: your gay

me: no I'm not

Kid: no, your gay

Me: Shut up

Kid: no, your gay

Me: ...

You just cant win.

I can feel gravity and I can see the roundness of the earth.

According to Einstein you feel acceleration. You have a fake picture of a round earth. Woohoo! I saw a movie the other day with aliens in it -- does that prove Aliens exist?