Proofs-thread

If you're so sure his findings are accurate... go there yourself and repeat his experiments.

But then you'll just say the same thing about Erasmus' results...

Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"

If you're so sure his findings are accurate... go there yourself and repeat his experiments.

But then you'll just say the same thing about Erasmus' results...

Why, will his be just as questionable?

Why, will his be just as questionable?

Presumably they will be, since the only reason you've so far provided for his results' questionability is that others have not repeated his experiment.  Once I do it, nobody will have repeated mine.

Of course, if you have a more concrete reason that they are questionable, I'm interested to hear type.

It may interest you to know that he repeated his experiment over a period of several years and got the same results.

Quote from: "Xargo"

Science is not coming up with a theory, and claim it to be a 100% correct without any evidence or proof

Yes, thanks for getting us back on topic.  I've provided a proof.  Do you have any particular criticism you'd like to make of it?

Heh. Really: Heh.

I asked for proof, and what I got was one formula and one lame-ass-picture. Now, I am not of the opinion that the earth's shape can be concluded using only one stand-alone math formula. -_-

And for that matter, you've got one formula. One! RE "theory" has more than hundreds. Your proof is not proof, but could become if you'd provided more substantial info. One crazy scientists' formula is not "proof" enough. Ffs. Wtf. Lol.

Edit: And stop marking words.

I asked for proof, and what I got was one formula and one lame-ass-picture. Now, I am not of the opinion that the earth's shape can be concluded using only one stand-alone math formula. -_-

Whatever.  Your fear of mathematical formulas doesn't make the proof any less valid.  The "formula" isn't the proof anyway, it's just a description of how much the round Earth curves.  I.e. it's not a "formula I've got" -- it's one of your formulas, as a matter of fact.  The proof is the result of the experiment -- the fact that he could see farther than he should have been able to on a round Earth.

And for that matter, you've got one formula. One! RE "theory" has more than hundreds.

Like I said, the only formula used is an "RE formula".  It really seems to me that a person who described himself as being totally unfamiliar with math is in no position to pass judgements on anybody else's use of it.

Edit: And stop marking words.

.... I don't know what that means.

Whatever.  Your fear of mathematical formulas doesn't make the proof any less valid.  The "formula" isn't the proof anyway, it's just a description of how much the round Earth curves.  I.e. it's not a "formula I've got" -- it's one of your formulas, as a matter of fact.  The proof is the result of the experiment -- the fact that he could see farther than he should have been able to on a round Earth.

My formulas?
I did not question the formula, I'm sure it's real thought throuh. I'm questioning your lack of proof, because over-all you've only managed to squeeze up one, questionable formula. What else? Nothing! You have a belief that the Earth is round, but no reason to believe it.

Quote

And for that matter, you've got one formula. One! RE "theory" has more than hundreds.

Like I said, the only formula used is an "RE formula".  It really seems to me that a person who described himself as being totally unfamiliar with math is in no position to pass judgements on anybody else's use of it.

Still not the point. I do not question the formula, and I never have(!), I question your lack of proof or evidence. On what do you rely your belief? One mathematic formula? Come on.[/i]

My formulas? :)

By "you" I mean "the community of REers".

I did not question the formula, ... you've only managed to squeeze up one, questionable formula.

Well, is it questionable, or isn't it?

And try to realize that the formula isn't a statement of the flatness of the Earth.  It's a statement of the roundness of the Earth.

You have a belief that the Earth is round, but no reason to believe it.

*suppresses infantile urge to pounce on this slip*

Still not the point. I do not question the formula, and I never have(!), I question your lack of proof or evidence. On what do you rely your belief? One mathematic formula? Come on.[/i]

Okay, got it, you believe the formula is true.

That said, I don't not base "my belief" (in a flat Earth) on this formula.  I base it on the fact that the formula was proven wrong.  The argument goes like this:

(1) If the Earth is approximately a sphere with a radius of such-and-such, such-and-such a formula must describe the curvature of the Earth.

(2) The aforementioned formula does not describe the curvature of the Earth.

(3) Therefore, the Earth cannot be a sphere as we suppose it to be.

Really, it's a pretty straightforward argument.

Quote from: "Xargo"

My formulas?

By "you" I mean "the community of REers".

Quote

I did not question the formula, ... you've only managed to squeeze up one, questionable formula.

Well, is it questionable, or isn't it?

And try to realize that the formula isn't a statement of the flatness of the Earth.  It's a statement of the roundness of the Earth.

Quote

You have a belief that the Earth is round, but no reason to believe it.

*suppresses infantile urge to pounce on this slip*

Quote

Still not the point. I do not question the formula, and I never have(!), I question your lack of proof or evidence. On what do you rely your belief? One mathematic formula? Come on.[/i]

Okay, got it, you believe the formula is true.

That said, I don't not base "my belief" (in a flat Earth) on this formula.  I base it on the fact that the formula was proven wrong.  The argument goes like this:

(1) If the Earth is approximately a sphere with a radius of such-and-such, such-and-such a formula must describe the curvature of the Earth.

(2) The aforementioned formula does not describe the curvature of the Earth.

(3) Therefore, the Earth cannot be a sphere as we suppose it to be.

Really, it's a pretty straightforward argument.

Have you even taken gravity into account? =/

Yes, since gravity is what would cause the uniform curvature of the still-standing water of the canal.

Yes, since gravity is what would cause the uniform curvature of the still-standing water of the canal.

Exactly.... what were you thinking of, RenaissanceMan?

Quote

I did not question the formula, ... you've only managed to squeeze up one, questionable formula.

Well, is it questionable, or isn't it?

Of course it's questionable. That does not mean I question it. I would be a fool to do so, wouldn't I? I suck at math, you know. :| Think I told you earlier.

Quote

You have a belief that the Earth is round, but no reason to believe it.

*suppresses infantile urge to pounce on this slip*

You caught me there.

Quote

Still not the point. I do not question the formula, and I never have(!), I question your lack of proof or evidence. On what do you rely your belief? One mathematic formula? Come on.[/i]

Okay, got it, you believe the formula is true.

Well, since I can't really oppose it, I guess I'm neutral.

That said, I don't not base "my belief" (in a flat Earth) on this formula.

Ok, so what do you base it on? You're an intelligent guy, so I'd love to hear your reasons.
Someone else started a thread on this subject already. Maybe you could post an answer there?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2943

Ok, so what do you base it on? You're an intelligent guy, so I'd love to hear your reasons.

Well, clearly Samuel Rowbotham based it on his experiments.  So far we've gone several pages without actually mentioning any flaws with the experiments, which leads me to believe that the readers either accept them as proof that the Earth cannot be round, or weren't really interested in proof in the first place.

Someone else started a thread on this subject already. Maybe you could post an answer there?

I have already posted all that I feel I have to contribute to that thread.

You have not answered accordingly. Drop your precious formula - unless that is truly all you've got to base your belief on - and then, provide an explanation for why you support the FE theory.

You have not answered accordingly.

How so?

Drop your precious formula

Why?  What you seem to be missing is that it's a formula that must describe the world correctly if the the world is round.

Why?  What you seem to be missing is that it's a formula that must describe the world correctly if the the world is round.

I cannot debate on the authentity of this formula, and I won't/don't/can't. I accept your use of the formula as one of your proofs that the Earth is flat. Ok? I don't even understand why you're so focused on that formula anyways? Sure, it's an "RE formula", but can be used as a proof to support FE theory. Gotcha. Move on ffs.

I cannot debate on the authentity of this formula, and I won't/don't/can't. I accept your use of the formula as one of your proofs that the Earth is flat. Ok? I don't even understand why you're so focused on that formula anyways? Sure, it's an "RE formula", but can be used as a proof to support FE theory. Gotcha. Move on ffs.

Umm... okay.  I'm only focused on it insofar as you keep saying you won't criticize it, but then ask me not to use it in arguments, for no particular reason.

Moving on, I have fulfilled the request made in the first post of this thread.

Quote from: "Xargo"

I cannot debate on the authentity of this formula, and I won't/don't/can't. I accept your use of the formula as one of your proofs that the Earth is flat. Ok? I don't even understand why you're so focused on that formula anyways? Sure, it's an "RE formula", but can be used as a proof to support FE theory. Gotcha. Move on ffs.

Umm... okay.  I'm only focused on it insofar as you keep saying you won't criticize it, but then ask me not to use it in arguments, for no particular reason.

Moving on, I have fulfilled the request made in the first post of this thread.

Still not answered my question.

Me: "I suck at math and can't debate the formula"
Erasmus: "zomg this and this @ the formula!"
Me: "I can't tell, but I accept that you use it as a proof for the theory. That's one proof in the bag."
Erasmus: "wtf forgetting da formula??!"
Me: "Yes. It's a proof. One proof. Move on."
Erasmus: "no! Im done here!"

Answer my question. Did that formula turn you into a FE or was it something else/more?

Me: "I suck at math and can't debate the formula"
Erasmus: "zomg this and this @ the formula!"
Me: "I can't tell, but I accept that you use it as a proof for the theory. That's one proof in the bag."
Erasmus: "wtf forgetting da formula??!"
Me: "Yes. It's a proof. One proof. Move on."
Erasmus: "no! Im done here!"

Hahahaha

Answer my question. Did that formula turn you into a FE or was it something else/more?

No.

Quote

Answer my question. Did that formula turn you into a FE or was it something else/more?

No.

Man, must've mustered all of your powers to squeeze out that tiny "No". I don't even know what that "No" was for. You don't want to answer my question? Did that formula NOT turn you into an FE'er? Or was it only that formula and nothing else/more that turned you into one?

Sigh. Words.

Man, must've mustered all of your powers to squeeze out that tiny "No".

Yeah I thought you'd be impressed.

I don't even know what that "No" was for.

You said, "X or Y?" and I said, "No."

Like, "Coffee or tea?"  "No."

Did that formula NOT turn you into an FE'er?

Yes, that formula did not turn me into an FEer.... do you mean, like, the way the ooze turned them into the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?

Quote from: "Xargo"

Man, must've mustered all of your powers to squeeze out that tiny "No".

Yeah I thought you'd be impressed.

Yep. Sure took me by surprise.

Quote

I don't even know what that "No" was for.

You said, "X or Y?" and I said, "No."

Like, "Coffee or tea?"  "No."

So you have no reason to believe in the flat earth theory then?

I've discovered that it's frustratingly difficult to receive one single straight answer from any FE. "Why do you believe in your theory?". Either no answer, or wordmarking, or change of subject. Quite interesting relly. Keeps me running.

Quote

Did that formula NOT turn you into an FE'er?

Yes, that formula did not turn me into an FEer.... do you mean, like, the way the ooze turned them into the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?

No, like effect and reaction.

So you have no reason to believe in the flat earth theory then?

I've discovered that it's frustratingly difficult to receive one single straight answer from any FE. "Why do you believe in your theory?". Either no answer, or wordmarking, or change of subject. Quite interesting relly. Keeps me running.

I think you're missing the most obvious answer; that is, he's not an FE'er.

And so, not being an FE'er, it is only natural that he has no reasons for being an FE'er.

(Sorry Erasmus if I ruined your fun.)

(Sorry Erasmus if I ruined your fun.)

You ruined my fun. :/

So, Unimportant, what made you into a FE believer?

Frankly, the prospect of being associated with the common RE'er was to terrifying to me that I had no choice but to adapt my beliefs.

Frankly, the prospect of being associated with the common RE'er was to terrifying to me that I had no choice but to adapt my beliefs.

I'm too tired for this type of crap-talk right now. It's sad that  you can't post one single serious answer to any serious question without adding irony or cynicism with it.

Don't take offense; have you seen some of the questions the other RE'ers ask? Pretty silly stuff.

Ill admit, some RE'ers post some dumb stuff, but you also have to admit, some FE'ers go out of their way to post dumb responses

Ill admit, some RE'ers post some dumb stuff, but you also have to admit, some FE'ers go out of their way to post dumb responses

No, we don't have to admit that.  Our responses are broken down into a few categories:

1)  We don't know the answer to that (the FE model is incomplete).

2)  That falls under "stuff we don't consider to be evidence".

3)  It's exactly the same as it is in the RE model.

4)  Please read the FAQ.

Which of these is a dumb response?

The penguins are genetically created and dinosaurs had powertools type of answer, all those that you mentioned are, acceptable, but frustrating

The penguins are genetically created and dinosaurs had powertools type of answer, all those that you mentioned are, acceptable, but frustrating

If you get to count FEers' joking responses, then I get to count REers' overwhelming barrages of mindless insults and plain old gibberish.

There's no comparison.