Proof of RET via topology

Now your just forcing things.
at the north pole, the sun never sets at the solstice.
yet, the sun is 66.5 latitudes away.
now we have set up the radius for the suns rays.
now those Aussies must be real depressed
to have no sunlight.

Once again FET has damned itself

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on September 27, 2009, 01:44:42 PM

Now your just forcing things.
at the north pole, the sun never sets at the solstice.
yet, the sun is 66.5 latitudes away.
now we have set up the radius for the suns rays.
now those Aussies must be real depressed
to have no sunlight.

Once again FET has damned itself

Uh, how? You can use exactly the same argument in RET, and it doesn't make it any less flawed.

so according to your theory, the sun has a shining radius of 66.5

so please tell me what the shining radius of your sun is.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on September 27, 2009, 05:11:47 PM

so please tell me what the shining radius of your sun is.

Approximately 1.0 ⨯ 10⁷ m.

Quote from: Parsifal on September 27, 2009, 05:44:24 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on September 27, 2009, 05:11:47 PM

so please tell me what the shining radius of your sun is.

Approximately 1.0 ⨯ 10⁷ m.

ok, what is the radius of the earth itself?
or what is the distance between the north pole, and chile's tip.

ok, what is the radius of the earth itself?

or what is the distance between the north pole, and chile's tip.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on September 27, 2009, 06:15:04 PM

ok, what is the radius of the earth itself?

Depending on which model you follow, anywhere from 2.0 ⨯ 10⁷ m to ∞ m.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on September 27, 2009, 06:15:04 PM

or what is the distance between the north pole, and chile's tip.

Depending on where you define the "tip" of Chile to be, anywhere from 1.2 ⨯ 10⁷ m to 2.0 ⨯ 10⁷ m.

ok, what do YOU think the surface area is for the earth, seeing as radius does not apply to a non disk or believer.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on September 27, 2009, 07:46:20 PM

ok, what do YOU think the surface area is for the earth, seeing as radius does not apply to a non disk or believer.

As I have just stated in another thread, I don't believe the Earth to be any particular shape. My opinion doesn't enter into it.

I am asking you, do you think the earth has a definite surface area.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on September 27, 2009, 07:46:20 PM

ok, what do YOU think the surface area is for the earth, seeing as radius does not apply to a non disk or believer.

As I have just stated in another thread, I don't believe the Earth to be any particular shape.

Truisms are no use to anyone Robo.

Quote from: Crustinator on September 28, 2009, 08:04:51 AM

Truisms are no use to anyone Robo.

As I have already pointed out, you have no concept of what a truism is.

: an undoubted or self-evident truth; especially : one too obvious for mention

If we remove the negative "belief" (since, according to you, opinion doesn't count)

But it is a statement regarding my belief. By removing the "belief" aspect of it, you are changing what the statement says.

My opinion doesn't enter into it.

It is regardless whether you "believe" the statements or not. They are still truisms.

Look:

If it is dark then it will also be black.

I believe that that if it is dark then it will also be black.

A cat has four legs unless it has more or less than four, in which case it does not have four legs.

I believe that a cat has four legs unless it has more or less than four, in which case it does not have four legs.

My statement is not similar to either of those.

Yes it is. I wish you'd learn Steve. Really I do.

My opinion doesn't enter into it.

Quote from: Parsifal on September 27, 2009, 07:49:08 PM

My opinion doesn't enter into it.

Please don't take my statements out of context. I would say that my opinion enters quite heavily into a statement regarding my opinion.

It's not out of context at all. Go back and reread what you said.

A statement about your opinion would only be worth anything if the end "fact" was not a truism. In this case it is.

An opinion is not a fact, and the two are not related.

Opinions are based around facts, or presumed facts.

Quote from: Crustinator on September 28, 2009, 09:39:18 AM

Opinions are based around facts, or presumed facts.

Many are, but they don't need to be.