Why?

Nah - but I do know logic, applied and symbolic at the college level, and mathematics up to number theory, and it's fun debunking this stuff.

CD

this kind of circular argument is why you are not able to convince people the earth is flat. that and the lack of evidence. 

It isn't a circular argument. That statement does not answer my question. If you claim that it does, then the onus is on you to convince me otherwise.

Answers generally provide some sort of response to the question at hand.

Just out of curiosity, can you please explain why he needs to answer your question before you'll answer his?  He asked the first question.  He asks, you answer...then you get to ask and he answers.  Thats how we learn things from each other and get things done. 

In my experience usually someone asks a question the person asked has only a few options. 

- Answer the question if he knows the answer.
- Tell the questioner "I don't know".
- Ask a clarifying question so as to be better able to answer accurately.
- Be rude and ignore the question altogether.
- Turn the question back on the original questioner because you haven't the faintest idea of the answer and you hope the original questioner will provide a reasonable answer that you can regurgitate nearly verbatim.

With respect Robosteve, can you tell us which category your line of reasoning falls into in this thread?  Or is there a 6th option I have not included above?  If there is, please tell us what it is. 

Will you at least tell us if you do or do not know the answer to the original question?  If so, when?

Just out of curiosity, can you please explain why he needs to answer your question before you'll answer his?  He asked the first question.  He asks, you answer...then you get to ask and he answers.  Thats how we learn things from each other and get things done. 

In my experience usually someone asks a question the person asked has only a few options. 

- Answer the question if he knows the answer.
- Tell the questioner "I don't know".
- Ask a clarifying question so as to be better able to answer accurately.
- Be rude and ignore the question altogether.
- Turn the question back on the original questioner because you haven't the faintest idea of the answer and you hope the original questioner will provide a reasonable answer that you can regurgitate nearly verbatim.

With respect Robosteve, can you tell us which category your line of reasoning falls into in this thread?  Or is there a 6th option I have not included above?  If there is, please tell us what it is.

There is a sixth option that my question falls into quite nicely. It may be succinctly described as "ask a rhetorical question of similar form to illustrate the inanity of the original question".

Will you at least tell us if you do or do not know the answer to the original question?  If so, when?

The question does not deserve an answer. See above.

HAY GUISE, TEH MOONZ N STAR IS A USELESS COS DA ERTH IS FALT LOLOLOLOL.


Please think before you type kids, otherwise it could get ugly.

Will you at least tell us if you do or do not know the answer to the original question?  If so, when?

The question does not deserve an answer. See above.
[/quote]

His question or mine?  

His question or mine?

His original question.

In the FE model, why do the stars (and possibly the moon) need to exist?  Obviously they are not there specifically for our amusement, so why then do they exist?

I don't want to put words in Robosteve's mouth, but I believe his responses are related to the fact that you asked a ludicrous question. Why does something NEED to exist? It exists because we can see it. Exactly the same is in the RE model. Why does it NEED to exist? I don't think you thought enough about your question before you tried to put it into words.

I don't want to put words in Robosteve's mouth, but I believe his responses are related to the fact that you asked a ludicrous question. Why does something NEED to exist? It exists because we can see it. Exactly the same is in the RE model. Why does it NEED to exist? I don't think you thought enough about your question before you tried to put it into words.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Quote from: Fletch on August 15, 2008, 05:07:02 AM

I don't want to put words in Robosteve's mouth, but I believe his responses are related to the fact that you asked a ludicrous question. Why does something NEED to exist? It exists because we can see it. Exactly the same is in the RE model. Why does it NEED to exist? I don't think you thought enough about your question before you tried to put it into words.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Obviously you couldn't because I would have accepted Fletch's answer had you typed it.

Obviously you couldn't because I would have accepted Fletch's answer had you typed it.

You didn't ask the right question to incite such response.

Quote from: troy2000 on August 14, 2008, 09:07:49 AM

In the FE model, why do the stars (and possibly the moon) need to exist?  Obviously they are not there specifically for our amusement, so why then do they exist?

I don't want to put words in Robosteve's mouth, but I believe his responses are related to the fact that you asked a ludicrous question. Why does something NEED to exist? It exists because we can see it. Exactly the same is in the RE model. Why does it NEED to exist? I don't think you thought enough about your question before you tried to put it into words.

I'm asking because according to FE, there is no solid explanation of what the stars are.  The reason I question whether they need to exist (assuming on the FE model they are not other suns) is because if they serve no relevant function to Earth, they would not have formed above the planet in the first place.  It's a perfectly valid question.

I'm asking because according to FE, there is no solid explanation of what the stars are.  The reason I question whether they need to exist (assuming on the FE model they are not other suns) is because if they serve no relevant function to Earth, they would not have formed above the planet in the first place.  It's a perfectly valid question.

No it isn't.

If that is your opinion, why did you continue to post after reading the original question.  Off-topic debate aside, I have already recieved the answer I was looking for from Mayhem.

If that is your opinion, why did you continue to post after reading the original question.  Off-topic debate aside, I have already recieved the answer I was looking for from Mayhem.

Because he was enjoying himself. Still is, I'd bet.

Oh I see.  Well, have fun Robosteve .

One thing you guys need to realize is the extent to which some regualrs here take literalism.  Asking a question in a way that you may think is acceptable and clear will frequently be turned back on itself...imaging you're having a conversation with a computer that has no ability to work without being 100% literal.

"Can you tell me what shape the earth is?"

"Yes."

"Well then?"

"Well then what?"

"Can you tell me what shape the earth is?"

"I've already answered your question.  Whats the problem?"

"Did you read my question?  Yes is not the shape of the earth.  Yes is not a valid answer to my question!  YOU'RE STUPID!!"

"I did read your question most carefully and after reconsidering it I again answer "Yes"."

You guys can see that the reply was actually "Yes I can tell you the shape of the earth, but sisnce you only asked if I CAN tell you, thats all I've done."

Literalism, taken to a whole new level.  My youngest older brother and I have been doing this back and forth for years so I recognize it...that why I asked some of my questions the way I did.

Will you at least tell us if you do or do not know the answer to the original question?  If so, when?
 

 

You can see that my first question could still be a yes or no answer, thus the follow up of when will you do so? 

You guys have got to slow down and rethink your sentences and ask them in the most precisely worded fashion possible...anything less and you're just providing entertainment at your own expense and blood pressure.

Why does something NEED to exist? It exists because we can see it. Exactly the same is in the RE model. Why does it NEED to exist? I don't think you thought enough about your question before you tried to put it into words.

I can see the curvature of the earth from a plane. That doesn't exist so your argument is flawed. Just because you see something doesn't mean it exists. By human nature, if you see something you don't understand you question it. Also by human nature if you know an answer or have an opinion you share it. Some people also like to subvert the whole process when things aren't going their way with childish insults/circular arguments, which appears to be RobSteve's position on this subject. I'd call that trolling but hey ho.

I think Goat-Penguin guy isn't nearly as intelligent as he'd like us to believe. He gives snide and condescending "replies", but no answers, because the only real answer is that stars are not useless points of light on some random black sphere that is somehow suspended around the earth as is hurtles through space, constantly accelerating to produce gravity. The moon isn't a tiny disk spinning about overhead, with no true purpose (or there to stabilize the purportedly much more massive disk of the earth), it's a very large ball of rock orbiting some 380 thousand kilometers away, creating oceanic and atmospheric tides.

I looked at the moon through my friend's telescope the other night, and it appeared to be very round, looking towards the terminator, or horizon of the moon, you could see it's topography, the massive shadows created by mountains and craters large enough to swallow entire states.

Everything up there's got it's uses, Jupiter was in full form as well, watching long enough, you could even see it's moons on their orbits around it's sphere as well.

I can see the curvature of the earth from a plane.

I've never seen it from my hundreds to thousands of flights.

Everything up there's got it's uses, Jupiter was in full form as well, watching long enough, you could even see it's moons on their orbits around it's sphere as well.

If jupiter is purportedly a sphere with a diameter 11 times larger than the supposed earths, how long were you watching to actually observe orbit? More likely it was an optical illusion.

Quote from: datascat on August 15, 2008, 10:32:26 AM

I can see the curvature of the earth from a plane.

I've never seen it from my hundreds to thousands of flights.

Sometimes we only see what we want to see, works both ways I suppose.

Exactly.

Quote from: Jazzlizard on August 15, 2008, 10:49:37 AM

Everything up there's got it's uses, Jupiter was in full form as well, watching long enough, you could even see it's moons on their orbits around it's sphere as well.

If jupiter is purportedly a sphere with a diameter 11 times larger than the supposed earths, how long were you watching to actually observe orbit? More likely it was an optical illusion.

Watching over the course of several hours, we were able to see two moons, Europa and Io, I believe, moving considerably. And if you're admitting to Jupiter's massive size, how does it fit inside this mysterious black sphere painted with stars?

I don't recall making any firm admissions that anything was spherical. It was all hypothetical. How were you able to see Jupiter so clearly? It must be quite a sight.

I don't recall making any firm admissions that anything was spherical. It was all hypothetical. How were you able to see Jupiter so clearly? It must be quite a sight.

We've got a telescope with an nine or ten inch lens, and a servo-drive to track stars and planets. As it neared the horizon, the sky was too bright where we were to keep watching (damn light pollution!).