Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET

  • 64 Replies
  • 14699 Views
*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • +0/-0
  • Resistor is fubar!
Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« on: July 02, 2008, 01:56:51 PM »
I've decided to collect all important arguments for FET from the FAQ and organize them into a structured list. Furthermore I have proceeded to "debunk" each and every one of them. Note that this list does not constitute an Argument for RET, but merely against FET in its current form. It is of course open for debate, and I would be glad to update the list with more points if people can raise them, aswell as correct the list, when someone can find a mistake in my logic and/or prove my deductions to be wrong. Note that I have seperated each argument by adding quote tags. This is merely to keep things tidy.


Quote
PREMISE: The Earth is observed to be flat.

PROOF: None. In order to prove by observation that the Earth is flat, it would need to be seen in its entirety. The small portion of the world that any one person can see would appear to be flat in both FET and RET due to limited perspective. Therefore the observation does not provide conclusive evidence to either theory.

CONCLUSION: UNVERIFIED


Quote
PREMISE: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g.

PROOF: None. As the proposed flat Earth has not been observed from the outside, an upward acceleration is not proven. Additionally, there is no explanation as to why the Earth should be accelerating upwards. Therefore it is just as likely that the Earth exerts a gravitational pull.

CONCLUSION: UNVERIFIED


Quote
PREMISE: There is a global conspiracy covering up the flatness of the world.

PROOF: None. This assumption has not been proven and is therefore merely a theory.

CONCLUSION: UNVERIFIED


Quote
PREMISE: All images of the Earth created by space agencies are fake.

PROOF: None. This claim is based on the unproven assumption that there is a global conspiracy theory. Therefore it cannot be assumed that all images are fake.

CONCLUSION: UNVERIFIED


Quote
PREMISE: The sun and moon are ~3000 miles away and roughly 32 miles in diameter.

PROOF: None. Since the distance to any stellar object cannot be measured from a single point on Earth, and FET does not provide evidence to have conducted proper measurements, it must be concluded that the distance and size of the sun and moon has been arbitrarily set to fit into FET.

CONCLUSION: UNVERIFIED


Quote
PREMISE: The sun is a spotlight.

PROOF: None. This hypothesis based neither on observation nor logic. It was merely constructed to conveniently fit into FET.

CONCLUSION: UNVERIFIED


Quote
PREMISE: The moon glows due to light from the sun being reflected off the Earth.

PROOF: None. This cannot be proven. It is just as likely that the moon glows directly from sunlight.

CONCLUSION: UNVERIFIED


Quote
PREMISE: Sustained space flight is not possible.

PROOF: None. This assumption is based on the unproven assumptions that there is upward acceleration (UA) and that the UA only affects certain objects. Additionally, it has not been independently verified.

CONCLUSION: UNVERIFIED
« Last Edit: July 03, 2008, 04:17:30 AM by MadDogX »
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

?

mxmm

  • 136
  • +0/-0
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2008, 02:05:36 PM »
Thank you so much... Also their celestial calculations, as I have shown, do not allow for clear day and night, just perpetual day.

?

Kasroa Is Gone

  • 6863
  • +0/-0
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2008, 03:25:40 PM »
Yeah, about time someone did this.......for the millionth time!

?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #3 on: July 02, 2008, 03:31:40 PM »
I can improve a few of these:

Quote
PREMISE: The Earth is accelerating up at 1g

EVIDENCE: The downward acceleration varies depending on where you are on Earth, and even varies with time at the same place.

CONCLUSION: FALSE

Quote
PREMISE: The Sun is a spotlight

EVIDENCE: In summer, the spotlight would have to illuminate all around the world while leaving a section towards the centre in darkness. In winter this pattern is reversed.

CONCLUSION: FALSE

Quote
PREMISE: The sun and moon are ~3000 miles away and roughly 32 miles in diameter.

EVIDENCE: The moon only presents one face to the entire Earth, implying it is very distant.

CONCLUSION: FALSE

Quote
PREMISE: Sustained space flight is not possible.

EVIDENCE: Man made objects such as the ISS can be independantly observed and verified to be in space.

CONCLUSION: FALSE

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #4 on: July 02, 2008, 07:39:50 PM »
Quote
PREMISE: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g.

PROOF: None. As the proposed flat Earth has not been observed from the outside, an upward acceleration is not proven. Additionally, there is no explanation as to why the Earth should be accelerating upwards. Therefore it is just as likely that the Earth exerts a gravitational pull.

CONCLUSION: FALSE
So, by your own admission, gravitation is false.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11833
  • +0/-0
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #5 on: July 02, 2008, 07:50:17 PM »
Here we go.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45162
  • +98/-138
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #6 on: July 02, 2008, 07:59:03 PM »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11833
  • +0/-0
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #7 on: July 02, 2008, 08:01:48 PM »
You can almost set your watch to it.  See you on page 8.

?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #8 on: July 02, 2008, 08:48:07 PM »
Quote
PREMISE: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g.

PROOF: None. As the proposed flat Earth has not been observed from the outside, an upward acceleration is not proven. Additionally, there is no explanation as to why the Earth should be accelerating upwards. Therefore it is just as likely that the Earth exerts a gravitational pull.

CONCLUSION: FALSE
So, by your own admission, gravitation is false.
I always enjoy these very well thought out posts. they are always a bit long though
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #9 on: July 02, 2008, 08:52:26 PM »
I like how they are all false because there is no "proof." Fallacies ftw!
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #10 on: July 02, 2008, 08:57:17 PM »
It would be trivial to make an equally fallacious thread against the RE model. For example:

There is no proof that NASA is honest about its claims. Conclusion: False

There is no proof that I am seeing a massive optical illusion when I look out my window. Conclusion: False

There is no proof that invisible undiscovered particles called 'gravitons' are pulling me towards the earth. Conclusion: False
« Last Edit: July 02, 2008, 08:59:38 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #11 on: July 02, 2008, 08:58:02 PM »
Quote
PREMISE: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g.

PROOF: None. As the proposed flat Earth has not been observed from the outside, an upward acceleration is not proven. Additionally, there is no explanation as to why the Earth should be accelerating upwards. Therefore it is just as likely that the Earth exerts a gravitational pull.

CONCLUSION: FALSE
So, by your own admission, gravitation is false.
I always enjoy these very well thought out posts. they are always a bit long though
Was there anything else that needed to be said?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • +0/-0
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #12 on: July 02, 2008, 10:24:04 PM »
It would be trivial to make an equally fallacious thread against the RE model. For example:

There is no proof that NASA is honest about its claims. Conclusion: False

There is no proof that I am seeing a massive optical illusion when I look out my window. Conclusion: False

There is no proof that invisible undiscovered particles called 'gravitons' are pulling me towards the earth. Conclusion: False


Just like I said at the start of this thread, I am not arguing for RET just against FET. For all I know the Earth could be dome shaped and sitting in the middle of a huge lake. So, instead of arguing against RET, how about providing some conclusive proof for your FE claims? EDIT: By the way, your previous arguments using a distorted version of Occam's razor are not valid, so please don't start copying and pasting again. Occam's razor does not say "the argument I can put into as few words as possible is correct". That can be turned around just as easily.


Quote
PREMISE: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g.

PROOF: None. As the proposed flat Earth has not been observed from the outside, an upward acceleration is not proven. Additionally, there is no explanation as to why the Earth should be accelerating upwards. Therefore it is just as likely that the Earth exerts a gravitational pull.

CONCLUSION: FALSE
So, by your own admission, gravitation is false.

I am saying it is, from our perspective, just as likely as UA. Therefore UA cannot be considered to be correct, as there is a conflicting theory.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2008, 10:29:46 PM by MadDogX »
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #13 on: July 02, 2008, 10:33:18 PM »
I am saying it is, from our perspective, just as likely as UA. Therefore UA cannot be considered to be correct, as there is a conflicting theory.

So the earth's mass somehow (no one knows how -- it's magic really) warps spacetime. This is just as likely as acceleration causing apparent gravitation (which we know is actually correct and exactly how this happens)?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Henry Borbath

  • 133
  • +0/-0
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #14 on: July 02, 2008, 10:37:16 PM »
(which we know is actually correct and exactly how this happens)?

Well if you're gonna ask us, then no this is not actually correct.
Quote from: Robosteve
IP banned Narc.

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • +0/-0
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2008, 10:38:00 PM »
I am saying it is, from our perspective, just as likely as UA. Therefore UA cannot be considered to be correct, as there is a conflicting theory.

So the earth's mass somehow (no one knows how -- it's magic really) warps spacetime. This is just as likely as acceleration causing apparent gravitation (which we know is actually correct and exactly how this happens)?


I can easily turn that around:

So the entire Earth is somehow being constantly (no one knows how -- it's magic really) accelerated upward at 1g. This is just as like as the Earth's mass warping spacetime and therefore causing gravitation (which we know is actually correct and exactly how it happens)?

From our limited perspective, both are equally likely, so neither can be deemed true.
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2008, 10:58:47 PM »
(which we know is actually correct and exactly how this happens)?

Well if you're gonna ask us, then no this is not actually correct.

You don't believe in the equivalence principle?    ???

You are thick.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2008, 11:01:52 PM »
I am saying it is, from our perspective, just as likely as UA. Therefore UA cannot be considered to be correct, as there is a conflicting theory.

So the earth's mass somehow (no one knows how -- it's magic really) warps spacetime. This is just as likely as acceleration causing apparent gravitation (which we know is actually correct and exactly how this happens)?


I can easily turn that around:

So the entire Earth is somehow being constantly (no one knows how -- it's magic really) accelerated upward at 1g. This is just as like as the Earth's mass warping spacetime and therefore causing gravitation (which we know is actually correct and exactly how it happens)?

From our limited perspective, both are equally likely, so neither can be deemed true.

But you don't know how it happens.  Mass + magic = gravitation 

I base my view on the equivalence principle which is well tested and demonstrable. I haven't seen anyone demonstrate mysterious newtonian gravity or the warping of space time.

You believe the entire universe can be accelerating for unknown reasons (because this is "science" even if it's magic) but don't believe the earth could be accelerating. Very odd to me.
 
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • +0/-0
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2008, 11:08:56 PM »
Magical force that pulls us toward the Earth.

OR

Magical force that accelerates the Earth upward.


Both appear to be rooted in magic. Just because you make gravity sound more complicated does not mean it is less correct as a theory. That's the same BS as Tom's laughable use of Occam's razor to prove that there must be a global conspiracy. You cannot prove something is wrong by describing it in big mysterious words and then providing a simpler sounding alternative. That works both ways.
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2008, 11:12:38 PM »
Magical force accelerating earth and the known universe

or

Magical force accelerating earth and the known universe
And
Magical force that pulls us toward the earth
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2008, 11:40:01 PM »
Magical force that pulls us toward the Earth.

OR

Magical force that accelerates the Earth upward.


Both appear to be rooted in magic. Just because you make gravity sound more complicated does not mean it is less correct as a theory. That's the same BS as Tom's laughable use of Occam's razor to prove that there must be a global conspiracy. You cannot prove something is wrong by describing it in big mysterious words and then providing a simpler sounding alternative. That works both ways.

Precisely why we don't know why REers try to argue about it. It's just plain stupid.

Then again, I'm not sure why we're arguing anything about the OP when it's all fallacies anyways.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • +0/-0
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2008, 12:17:58 AM »
If by "it's all fallacies anyway" you mean FET, I agree.
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2008, 12:21:02 AM »
If by "it's all fallacies anyway" you mean FET, I agree.

No, your post and conclusions.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

Gunnar

  • 63
  • +0/-0
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #23 on: July 03, 2008, 12:28:23 AM »


There is no proof that NASA is honest about its claims. Conclusion

False! False! False!  As has been pointed out by several contributors to this forum, anyone with a good telescope can can see the ISS (not to mention numerous other satellites) moving overhead on a clear night by pointing it where NASA says it will be.  You could confirm that for yourself with your own telescope, if you were not terrified of the possibility of being proven wrong!  As has also been pointed out, many thousands of people (including some of the contributors to this forum) have witnessed launches of NASA spacecraft.

On the other hand, there is abundant proof that you often rely on dishonest claims to support your views.  You have been busted for this on this forum so many times by so many people (including me) that I have lost count!

Quote
There is no proof that I am seeing a massive optical illusion when I look out my window

There is no doubt about the "massive" part.  The Earth is admittedly huge and massive compared to ordinary human scales, but because it is so massive, it necessarily follows that on ordinary human scales, its curvature would ordinarily be unnoticeable.  Suppose you had a huge, truly flat and rigid disc 300 feet in diameter and laid it down and balanced it on a perfectly smooth section of the Earth's surface that exactly conformed to the Earth's curvature based on its diameter of 7,926.36 miles (at the Equator).  The outer edges of that disc would be raised only 0.07 inches off the ground.  You could barely get a knife blade under that!  Of course the Earth's surface would be perceived as flat on ordinary human scales and can be safely treated as flat for most practical purposes.  However, this misperception of flatness only exists when you narrowly focus on your immediate surroundings.  If you raise your eyes up to the sky and observe the observations listed in the threads Polaris and the Celestial North Pole and Another Observation that FET Simply Cannot Exlplain, it is no longer possible to reasonably avoid the conclusion that the appearance of flatness is a mis-perception.  This is your whole problem!  You insist on narrowing your perception to such ridiculously narrow extremes that you guarantee that your perception of reality will be distorted!  You still have not been able to come up with any rebuttals to the conclusions listed in the above mentioned threads.  You simply can't, at least not any that are both reasonable and intellectually honest!

Quote
There is no proof that invisible undiscovered particles called 'gravitons' are pulling me towards the earth.

I confess that I am not completely sold on the existence of gravitons myself, though I don't know enough to deny the possibility of their existence.  Nevertheless, unless you arbitrarily insist that Henry Cavendish and the many who successfully repeated his experiments and measurements are all lying, gravitational effects between any two masses are demonstrably real and measurable, with the gravitational constant in MKS units determined to be equal to 6.673 x 10^-11.

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • +0/-0
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #24 on: July 03, 2008, 12:28:40 AM »
If by "it's all fallacies anyway" you mean FET, I agree.

No, your post and conclusions.


Unverifiable observations are false.
Deductions made from unverifiable observations are false.
Baseless claims are false.
Deductions made from baseless claims are obviously false.

As far as I can tell, every single idea related to flat Earth theory is based on one of those.
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #25 on: July 03, 2008, 12:51:09 AM »
Quote
False! False! False!  As has been pointed out by several contributors to this forum, anyone with a good telescope can can see the ISS (not to mention numerous other satellites) moving overhead on a clear night by pointing it where NASA says it will be.

No you can't. It's been shown that NASA can't even predict where the sun and moon will be, let alone any satellite or celestial body.

Quote
There is no doubt about the "massive" part.  The Earth is admittedly huge and massive compared to ordinary human scales, but because it is so massive, it necessarily follows that on ordinary human scales, its curvature would ordinarily be unnoticeable.

Yeah right. It's all an illusion. Great argument there.  ::)

Quote
Unverifiable observations are false.
Deductions made from unverifiable observations are false.
Baseless claims are false.
Deductions made from baseless claims are obviously false.

As far as I can tell, every single idea related to flat Earth theory is based on one of those.

Nope. I can verify quite easily that the earth is flat with a look out my window.

It's your "the space man said so" argument which is unverifiable.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2008, 12:56:34 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • +0/-0
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #26 on: July 03, 2008, 01:02:47 AM »
Quote
False! False! False!  As has been pointed out by several contributors to this forum, anyone with a good telescope can can see the ISS (not to mention numerous other satellites) moving overhead on a clear night by pointing it where NASA says it will be.

No you can't. It's been shown that NASA can't even predict where the sun and moon will be, let alone any satellite or celestial body.

Weird. I was in Land's End, England for the 1999 solar eclipse. That was no coincidence. I knew of this event, because it was accurately predicted years in advance. I have also seen several lunar eclipses. Coinsidence? No. I knew of these events because they were predicted in advance. Please stop repeating your foolish claims as if you knew the slightest thing about astronomy.


Quote
Unverifiable observations are false.
Deductions made from unverifiable observations are false.
Baseless claims are false.
Deductions made from baseless claims are obviously false.

As far as I can tell, every single idea related to flat Earth theory is based on one of those.

Nope. I can verify quite easily that the earth is flat with a look out my window.

It's your "the space man said so" argument which is unverifiable.

*yawn*
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

?

Gunnar

  • 63
  • +0/-0
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #27 on: July 03, 2008, 01:18:42 AM »
Quote
False! False! False!  As has been pointed out by several contributors to this forum, anyone with a good telescope can can see the ISS (not to mention numerous other satellites) moving overhead on a clear night by pointing it where NASA says it will be.

Quote
No you can't. It's been shown that NASA can't even predict where the sun and moon will be, let alone any satellite or celestial body.

Another example of your dishonesty and attempts to deceive.  You simply make a flat, unsupportable assertion with not even the slightest attempt to back it up with any evidence.

Quote
There is no doubt about the "massive" part.  The Earth is admittedly huge and massive compared to ordinary human scales, but because it is so massive, it necessarily follows that on ordinary human scales, its curvature would ordinarily be unnoticeable.

Quote
Yeah right. It's all an illusion. Great argument there.  ::)

Yet another example of your dishonesty!  You selectively quote only a tiny part of what I said and ignore the most telling part of the argument that you know you cannot even begin to reasonably refute!  I repeat, you still have not even tried to rebut the arguments in the threads I mentioned.  The fact remains that RE is the only reasonable and intellectually honest way to explain the observations I pointed out in them, and by your lack of response to them, you apparently realize that but are too stubbornly unreasonable and dishonest to admit it!

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #28 on: July 03, 2008, 01:54:56 AM »

Quote
PREMISE: The Earth is observed to be flat.

PROOF: None. In order to prove by observation that the Earth is flat, it would need to be seen in its entirety. The small portion of the world that any one person can see would appear to be flat in both FET and RET due to limited perspective. Therefore the observation does not provide conclusive evidence to either theory.

CONCLUSION: FALSE

But what if you've observed many different parts of the earth, like I have? I cannot go into 'space', so it's impossible for me to view the earth in its entirety. If the earth looks flat no matter where you are on the planet, and you cannot go into space (which the vast majority of people cannot), aren't you just telling us to assume it's round, without any observable proof?


Quote
PREMISE: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g.

PROOF: None. As the proposed flat Earth has not been observed from the outside, an upward acceleration is not proven. Additionally, there is no explanation as to why the Earth should be accelerating upwards. Therefore it is just as likely that the Earth exerts a gravitational pull.

CONCLUSION: FALSE


Well, that's at best a draw. How is it false if they are, by your own admission, equally likely?


Quote
PREMISE: There is a global conspiracy covering up the flatness of the world.

PROOF: None. This assumption has not been proven and is therefore merely a theory.

CONCLUSION: FALSE


We believe the earth is flat. Whatever you think of our science, this is what we believe. The only explanation then is that there is some sort of conspiracy; otherwise it is impossible to imagine such large organisations unknowingly spreading a false belief.


Quote
PREMISE: All images of the Earth created by space agencies are fake.

PROOF: None. This claim is based on the unproven assumption that there is a global conspiracy theory. Therefore it cannot be assumed that all images are fake.

CONCLUSION: FALSE


This is not a second point; this and the previous are one and the same. This comes across as an attempt to fill up space.


Quote
PREMISE: The sun and moon are ~3000 miles away and roughly 32 miles in diameter.

PROOF: None. Since the distance to any stellar object cannot be measured from a single point on Earth, and FET does not provide evidence to have conducted proper measurements, it must be concluded that the distance and size of the sun and moon has been arbitrarily set to fit into FET.

CONCLUSION: FALSE


Ok, seriously, I would advise you to shy away from arguing about things being 'arbitrarily' set to fit into FET, because RET theory is literally strewn with such examples, many of which have subsequently been discarded, and of which there are many at the forefront of globularist science today.


Quote
PREMISE: The sun is a spotlight.

PROOF: None. This hypothesis based neither on observation nor logic. It was merely constructed to conveniently fit into FET.

CONCLUSION: FALSE


Quote
PREMISE: The moon glows due to light from the sun being reflected off the Earth.

PROOF: None. This cannot be proven. It is just as likely that the moon glows directly from sunlight.

CONCLUSION: FALSE

Again, these are two extra points related directly to the one above it, and not separate. Space filling.


Quote
PREMISE: Sustained space flight is not possible.

PROOF: None. This assumption is based on the unproven assumptions that there is upward acceleration (UA) and that the UA only affects certain objects. Additionally, it has not been independently verified.

CONCLUSION: FALSE


I'm actually not sure about this; I think a number of people on this site have expressed opinions to the contrary, but I must admit I cannot tackle this point as I do not feel I have sufficient knowledge to do so, on any level.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • +0/-0
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« Reply #29 on: July 03, 2008, 02:14:40 AM »
The fact that any small portion of the Earth appears to be flat is not proof that it is flat. In both RET and FET, the Earth is considered to be huge, so in both theories it is perfectly logical that any small portion of the Earth will appear to be flat from close up. I have shown that even under perfect conditions, the visible curve of the Earth according to RET would be less than 0.5°. Imperceptible for a human. Considering that the Earth's surface is not perfectly even adds to that. So, when you say you look out of the window and the Earth appears to be flat, no matter where you are on Earth, you cannot be sure that the entire Earth is truly flat because it is not the only possible explanation for what you see.

As for magical UA vs magical gravity, since both seem to be equally likely but they contradict each other, neither can be considered to be true, therefore both must default to false until proven otherwise.

As has been stated in numerous threads, the assumption that there is a conspiracy is based on the assumption that the Earth is flat and vice versa. Since there is no proof for either, both default to false. Yes, the fake image argument is connected to this. I can merge them if you like.

As for the sun and moon, their size and distance is pure conjecture, created to fit into FET. Thus unless the Earth is proven to be flat, the assumptions made on the size and distance of the sun, moon, stars and other planets are completely worthless.

As for sustained space flight being impossible, yes it seems that this point is disputed even amongst FE proponents. Still it is an unverified claim in any case.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2008, 02:22:29 AM by MadDogX »
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.