Someone Explain things to me please.

Everything I have read sounds entirely medieval. Dark-energy, the Ice wall? Nothing has made good, solid sense yet. "The Burden of Proof is on you" was said to someone demanding proof and is the exact same thing that religious figures use against people that demand miracles. If the forum continually uses 'science' as its foundation, why are they giving the vague religious answers? If this is a scientific fact, give me SCIENCE to prove it, not a load of theories about bendy-light, elephants, turtles, and a sun that chases its tail.


I'd like for someone intelligent to answer. No crap.

Please read the faq

Don't my references to bendy light, elephants, turtles, and how you explain the sun INDICATE that I have already?

Not to sound condescending... no, specifically to sound condescending

Dark energy exists in round earth theory as well.

The burden of proof is on you because these are the Flat Earth Society Forums. That is the premise behind our argument. 1. The Earth is flat. Everything else follows.

Turtles and/or elephants are something of a joke to draw trolls out of the woodwork. (Like you!)

Try reading the posts for a few more weeks and using the search function to answer your questions before making yourself look unintelligent.

What is dark energy in the Round Earth theory?

Also, I understand this is a flat-earth forum. I have not stated that I do not believe it. I am asking for answers with some physical evidence behind them.

What is dark energy in the Round Earth theory?

Dark energy in the Round Earth theory explains why our Universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate.

Quote from: onebrowncow on May 14, 2009, 09:32:42 AM

What is dark energy in the Round Earth theory?

Dark energy in the Round Earth theory explains why our Universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate.

Nope, that's dark energy.  Dark matter is why galaxies act "heavier" than they're supposed to.

The burden of proof is on you because these are the Flat Earth Society Forums. That is the premise behind our argument. 1. The Earth is flat. Everything else follows.

Actually, that's a logical fallacy. The burden of proof doesn't suddenly shift simply because of where a debate is held... The side that makes an assertion must back it up, not tell the other side to, "prove me wrong."

Everything I have read sounds entirely medieval. Dark-energy, the Ice wall? Nothing has made good, solid sense yet. "The Burden of Proof is on you" was said to someone demanding proof and is the exact same thing that religious figures use against people that demand miracles. If the forum continually uses 'science' as its foundation, why are they giving the vague religious answers? If this is a scientific fact, give me SCIENCE to prove it, not a load of theories about bendy-light, elephants, turtles, and a sun that chases its tail.


I'd like for someone intelligent to answer. No crap.

Sorry, what was the question? Orite, there wasn't one, so you don't actually want an answer, you just want to drown us in your ignorance.

Quote from: onebrowncow on May 14, 2009, 09:07:08 AM

Everything I have read sounds entirely medieval. Dark-energy, the Ice wall? Nothing has made good, solid sense yet. "The Burden of Proof is on you" was said to someone demanding proof and is the exact same thing that religious figures use against people that demand miracles. If the forum continually uses 'science' as its foundation, why are they giving the vague religious answers? If this is a scientific fact, give me SCIENCE to prove it, not a load of theories about bendy-light, elephants, turtles, and a sun that chases its tail.


I'd like for someone intelligent to answer. No crap.

Sorry, what was the question? Orite, there wasn't one, so you don't actually want an answer, you just want to drown us in your ignorance.

I think he said he wants clear and concise reasoning from FE'ers on why their beliefs are what they are, which I feel to be a reasonable demand -- from what I've read here, everyone seems fairly intelligent, if a little hell-bent on supporting their point of view at the possible expense of logic... And again, to make the assertion based on fact (rather than faith, which is indisputable) requires that one would actually have said information.

So he doesn't want answers or explanation, but justification? That's odd given the title of the thread and that last paragraph.

So he doesn't want answers or explanation, but justification? That's odd given the title of the thread and that last paragraph.

Uh, what? I... I didn't say that at all. Did you, like... Read my post?

He wants information that's more than conjecture -- he wants evidence. So rather than being aggressive and snarky, why not just either give it to him or leave it be? Surely your attitude doesn't benefit your position, does it? I mean, last I heard conversion by the sword was a failed experiment.

The title of the thread:

Someone Explain things to me please.

That doesn't sound like someone asking for evidence.

You heard wrong, when has any conversion ever been by anything other than the sword?

The title of the thread:

Quote

Someone Explain things to me please.

That doesn't sound like someone asking for evidence.

You heard wrong, when has any conversion ever been by anything other than the sword?

Read the first post, where he literally asks for, "SCIENCE".

And conversion by the sword is a useless concept. It doesn't create real belief. Real conversion is when you see individuals find new faiths on their own or through passive means. It happens every day. I personally see it all the time.

Don't you know anything about logic?

You can't state "the earth is flat" as a premise.  That would be as if I stated "elephants are aliens" as a premise and started a whole forum devoted to it.  Premises, by definition, are axiomatic, meaning that they cannot be proven.

Are you saying that it is impossible to prove the flat earth?  Or that this entire forum is based on a hypothesis that is admitted to be totally speculative?  Because logic DICTATES that it MUST be one or the other.  This is a LOGICAL FACT.

So choose one of the options, or assert that "the earth is flat" is not actually your premise, but your conclusion.

The fact that the Earth is flat is the conclusion of EnaG, and the premise of all further FE research. The same is true of RE if you replace "flat" with "round", "EnaG" with "other shit" and "fact" with "lie".

"Round earth" is NOT a premise of "accepted" science.  It is a conclusion drawn from experimentation and analysis.  Ever heard of a guy named Galileo?  Look him up.  He proved it.

The fact that the Earth is flat is the conclusion of EnaG, and the premise of all further FE research. The same is true of RE if you replace "flat" with "round", "EnaG" with "other shit" and "fact" with "lie".

And relace the "bullshit" of FE with "evidence" of RE.

"Round earth" is NOT a premise of "accepted" science.  It is a conclusion drawn from experimentation and analysis.  Ever heard of a guy named Galileo?  Look him up.  He proved it.

It's Galileo's conclusion, yes, but RE is now taken as a given by most modern science, as FE is taken as a given by Flat Earth Theorists. You're not going to win this one, it's pretty much a direct parallel.

Quote from: General Douchebag on May 17, 2009, 03:02:47 AM

The fact that the Earth is flat is the conclusion of EnaG, and the premise of all further FE research. The same is true of RE if you replace "flat" with "round", "EnaG" with "other shit" and "fact" with "lie".

And relace the "bullshit" of FE with "evidence" of RE.

Where in that post did I say "bullshit"?

Quote from: Apathy King on May 14, 2009, 09:30:30 AM

The burden of proof is on you because these are the Flat Earth Society Forums. That is the premise behind our argument. 1. The Earth is flat. Everything else follows.

Actually, that's a logical fallacy. The burden of proof doesn't suddenly shift simply because of where a debate is held... The side that makes an assertion must back it up, not tell the other side to, "prove me wrong."

I agree, the side making an assertion must back it up.  Well, it's the default position on this forum that the Earth is flat.  You are the one coming here making the assertion that the Earth is not flat, so you are obligated to prove your case, not us.

Glad we cleared that up.

Quote from: munkirench on May 17, 2009, 07:38:46 AM

"Round earth" is NOT a premise of "accepted" science.  It is a conclusion drawn from experimentation and analysis.  Ever heard of a guy named Galileo?  Look him up.  He proved it.

It's Galileo's conclusion, yes, but RE is now taken as a given by most modern science, as FE is taken as a given by Flat Earth Theorists. You're not going to win this one, it's pretty much a direct parallel.

So let me get this straight... you believe that every single person in the world must review and confirm accepted proofs of EVERY single piece of science that they study?  It is totally unacceptable to base new technology/science on old science just because it is old?

It is NOT a direct parallel.  The reason that RET is accepted is because it was already proven.  FET has NOT been proven.  Therefore, blindly accepting FET in the same manner that (as you say) "normal" people accept RET is most definitely not the same thing.  There are mountains of confirmed evidence of RET.  There are mountains of analyses that led to the conclusion of RET.  There is no evidence whatsoever (ZERO) of FET.  Except for the inevitable "LOOK OUT YOUR WINDOW WHILE I MASTURBATE TO CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!" claim that is rendered useless by the fact that FET and RET both agree on what will be observed when someone looks out their window (which is, incidentally, NOT a flat earth.  Nothing outside my window looks flat.  So unless you live on an oil rig, or in some unfortunate part of Iowa where there's nothing to do but pick corn and make claims equivalent to religious denial, then that particular argument fails.)

Have you even considered reading EnaG or the FAQ, as everybody tells you to? Although your first paragraph (bar the final sentence) is entirely correct, but I'm not sure how you got that from the quoted post.

Yes, I've read the FAQ, and it's totally speculative.  There is no evidence in it.  It is a dictionary of an imaginary reality.  I have not observed a single thing which is described in the FAQ that conclusively shows the earth is flat.

I've never heard of EnaG before your post.

I was able to draw that conclusion because I have a brain, and I know how to use it.

But to continue... do you believe that every freshman studying chemistry should be required to learn how quantum mechanics derives the shapes of the principle orbitals?  Every freshman studying circuits should be required to learn all of the E/M that describes the motion of electrons through different materials?

Absurd.  Progress only happens because people are able to build on top of the work of previous generations.  If every single person was required to re-derive the conclusions of the previous generation, nothing would ever get done.  We'd still be amazed at the incredible invention of the wheel.

Furthermore, the fact that things are accepted as givens do not discredit them.  It serves to show that most people are ignorant, but doesn't change facts.

Look out your window. There is plenty of evidence.

Quote from: EnigmaZV on May 14, 2009, 12:11:12 PM

Quote from: onebrowncow on May 14, 2009, 09:32:42 AM

What is dark energy in the Round Earth theory?

Dark energy in the Round Earth theory explains why our Universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate.

Nope, that's dark energy.  Dark matter is why galaxies act "heavier" than they're supposed to.

E=mc^2

Quote from: markjo on May 14, 2009, 01:12:39 PM

Quote from: EnigmaZV on May 14, 2009, 12:11:12 PM

Quote from: onebrowncow on May 14, 2009, 09:32:42 AM

What is dark energy in the Round Earth theory?

Dark energy in the Round Earth theory explains why our Universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate.

Nope, that's dark energy.  Dark matter is why galaxies act "heavier" than they're supposed to.

E=mc^2

LOL no.  Actually dark energy is theorized to exist because the equations of relativity don't adequately explain the expansion of the universe.

Look out your window. There is plenty of evidence.

When I look out my window, I see exactly what RET predicts.  Any other evidence you care to submit?

Quote from: EnigmaZV on May 14, 2009, 12:11:12 PM

Quote from: onebrowncow on May 14, 2009, 09:32:42 AM

What is dark energy in the Round Earth theory?

Dark energy in the Round Earth theory explains why our Universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate.

Nope, that's dark energy.  Dark matter is why galaxies act "heavier" than they're supposed to.

lolwut?! lrn2read.

Quote from: Torin on May 16, 2009, 12:33:10 PM

Quote from: Apathy King on May 14, 2009, 09:30:30 AM

The burden of proof is on you because these are the Flat Earth Society Forums. That is the premise behind our argument. 1. The Earth is flat. Everything else follows.

Actually, that's a logical fallacy. The burden of proof doesn't suddenly shift simply because of where a debate is held... The side that makes an assertion must back it up, not tell the other side to, "prove me wrong."

I agree, the side making an assertion must back it up.  Well, it's the default position on this forum that the Earth is flat.  You are the one coming here making the assertion that the Earth is not flat, so you are obligated to prove your case, not us.

Glad we cleared that up.

This is still a fallacy. You cannot use lack of evidence as evidence. This is the same as someone saying "you can't prove the universe is 14 billion years old. Therefore, God exists". Even if the general consensus here is that the Earth is flat you can't possibly expect people to believe that without questioning. If you can't provide sufficient evidence to back up your point then you have no point. The place of discussion is of little importance.

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on May 17, 2009, 03:05:38 PM

Look out your window. There is plenty of evidence.

When I look out my window, I see exactly what RET predicts.  Any other evidence you care to submit?

What do you see that RE predicts and FE doesn't?