Disproving RET - a challenge

  • 205 Replies
  • 36765 Views
?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #30 on: December 07, 2009, 09:01:46 AM »
It's presumptuous and demanding to expect us to devote our time to convincing you of anything... it is neither proper, efficient, or required of us to adhere to the demands of every arrogant RE'er that crosses these boards for us to do their work for them.

Strange that, considering how eager the flat guys usually are to bring up all sorts of arcane explanations and theories when not specifically asked to do so in other threads. Yet a simple request for clarification of something Lord Wilmore says the forum already contains is met with contempt.
I also find it amusing that the flat guys don't seem to realise what these type of posts make them look like to neutral observers.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

Tristan

  • 180
  • Bendy Earth Proponent
Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #31 on: December 07, 2009, 09:31:14 AM »
Burden of proof is lies on him because he's approaching us to contest our model.

The funny thing about this argument is that it really exposes a rather raw nerve in the whole FE community - they know that their "proofs" don't make any sense, which is why they insist that it's not their job to provide them. If it were so "obvious" and "self evident" that the earth was flat, they should have proof coming out of their ears.

Better still, if the Flat Earth society actually had real, incontravertible proof that the earth was flat, they'd be running around telling the entire world every chance they got and saying "see... look! we were right all along!" It seems suspicious that a society established to promote a scientific position would be so reluctant to hand out evidence.

As a point of contrast, have a look here: http://www.asm.org/

This is the homepage of the American Society for Microbiology. Now, I can't claim to have trawled through the entire site, but I can't say I spotted comments or pages from anyone saying that the burden was on the visitors to disprove the existence of micro-organisms. They've even got a page of science experiments that school children can do in the classroom that demonstrate the existence of microbes. The site links to their forum: http://www.microbes.info/forums/ so if anyone would like to ask someone there to show proof of the existence of microbes, I'm sure they'd oblige. And I highly doubt you'd get the "burden of proof" treatment that you get here.

Bottom line is this: If it's not the Flat Earth Society's job to prove that the earth is flat, then you've kinda scuppered yourself there.

Image used in Avatar:
"Duck Dodgers™ in the 24&1/2th Century"
© Warner Brothers Animation
All Rights Reserved

Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #32 on: December 07, 2009, 09:47:27 AM »
I've always wondered something similar, if the point of the FES forums isn't as a placefrom which FETers put the case for FET and a place to discuss the arguments for an against FET, then what exactly is the point of the forums?

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #33 on: December 07, 2009, 02:02:34 PM »
To discuss FET.
"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

Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #34 on: December 07, 2009, 02:33:44 PM »
Several flat guys have stated that Round Earth Theory has been disproved. When I asked for an example of an observation that FET explains but RET doesn't, none were forthcoming.
Therefore, I challenge anyone to give me an example of this kind. Without it, it is impossible to demonstrate that FET would be superior to RET - the best you could get was equality of likelihood. And without disproving RET, you cannot prove FET.
NOTE: Rowbotham's experiments cannot be cited as when repeated by others they gave opposite results, therefore they are of null value to either side of the argument.


To discuss FET.

 ???
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

?

Robert64

  • 121
  • Lives on a Round Earth
Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #35 on: December 07, 2009, 02:46:19 PM »
Several flat guys have stated that Round Earth Theory has been disproved. When I asked for an example of an observation that FET explains but RET doesn't, none were forthcoming.
Therefore, I challenge anyone to give me an example of this kind. Without it, it is impossible to demonstrate that FET would be superior to RET - the best you could get was equality of likelihood. And without disproving RET, you cannot prove FET.
NOTE: Rowbotham's experiments cannot be cited as when repeated by others they gave opposite results, therefore they are of null value to either side of the argument.


To discuss FET.

 ???

For FE believers to improve the theory and discuss its details, so they can get closer to the truth.

Although I think eventually they will stumble upon the real evidence themselves, and eventually will know the real truth.

?

Robert64

  • 121
  • Lives on a Round Earth
Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #36 on: December 07, 2009, 03:14:56 PM »
For FE believers to improve the theory and discuss its details, so they can get closer to the truth.

You're suggesting ENaG is an approximation? That's heretic speak round here.
If they had left the theory as it was in ENaG, there would be no point to discussion. ;)

Going for the night, I'll carry on with this tomorrow.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #37 on: December 07, 2009, 03:38:08 PM »
To discuss FET.

I thought you had no interest in this thread?
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #38 on: December 08, 2009, 04:45:15 AM »
To discuss FET.

I thought you had no interest in this thread?


Jesus, are you my mother? Just because I don't want to have a fruitless discussion with you, doesn't mean I don't want to discuss it all.
"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

Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #39 on: December 08, 2009, 06:07:20 AM »
To discuss FET.

I thought you had no interest in this thread?

I thought this was the topic of this thread:

Several flat guys have stated that Round Earth Theory has been disproved. When I asked for an example of an observation that FET explains but RET doesn't, none were forthcoming.
Therefore, I challenge anyone to give me an example of this kind. Without it, it is impossible to demonstrate that FET would be superior to RET - the best you could get was equality of likelihood. And without disproving RET, you cannot prove FET.
NOTE: Rowbotham's experiments cannot be cited as when repeated by others they gave opposite results, therefore they are of null value to either side of the argument.
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #40 on: December 08, 2009, 06:27:45 AM »
Someone asked a question, and I answered it. It really is as simple as that.
"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

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #41 on: December 10, 2009, 12:51:29 PM »
Do you wish to contribute an example of a phenomenon explained by FET but not by RET, Lord Wilmore?
(For the benefit of others, obviously, as you scorn me for asking for such a thing.)
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

Raiku

  • 118
  • War Squirrel.
Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #42 on: December 10, 2009, 02:57:06 PM »
FE'ers are like politicians.  They always walk around the question rather than answer it.
I guess all humans have mental problems since we believe the Earth exists...

Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #43 on: December 10, 2009, 03:23:06 PM »
It will always be a source of great amusement to me how blind FE'ers seem to be to the weakness and folly of their own position, no matter how convincing and abundant the contrary evidence.  I still maintain that they, by their tactics and the absurdity of their arguments, actually do at least as much damage to the credibility of FET as the best reasoned arguments of its opponents.  This may even be the deliberate aim of some of the fake FE'ers (who, I am sure, constitute the great majority of the "FE'ers" on this site).  I admit, however, that I am almost as amused and/or dismayed, at times, by the arguments used by some of the less scientifically literate of the RE advocates.  I think, however, that at least some of the latter often learn something useful from some of the discussions at this site, and wind up being better informed on science, in general, than they were before.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2009, 04:22:40 PM by Rational U.S. Viking »

?

Raiku

  • 118
  • War Squirrel.
Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #44 on: December 10, 2009, 06:48:19 PM »
Agreed.
I guess all humans have mental problems since we believe the Earth exists...

Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #45 on: December 10, 2009, 07:57:38 PM »
It will always be a source of great amusement to me how blind FE'ers seem to be to the weakness and folly of their own position, no matter how convincing and abundant the contrary evidence.  I still maintain that they, by their tactics and the absurdity of their arguments, actually do at least as much damage to the credibility of FET as the best reasoned arguments of its opponents.  This may even be the deliberate aim of some of the fake FE'ers (who, I am sure, constitute the great majority of the "FE'ers" on this site).  I admit, however, that I am almost as amused and/or dismayed, at times, by the arguments used by some of the less scientifically literate of the RE advocates.  I think, however, that at least some of the latter often learn something useful from some of the discussions at this site, and wind up being better informed on science, in general, than they were before.
Personally this site has made me think much more about skepticism, the line between skepticism and fanaticism, the premises I assume to be true, and the way I view the world.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #46 on: December 11, 2009, 01:20:33 PM »
And still we wait for one solitary example...  ;)
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #47 on: December 11, 2009, 01:26:23 PM »
And still we wait for one solitary example...  ;)

It's only been 9 days.....
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

?

Raiku

  • 118
  • War Squirrel.
Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #48 on: December 11, 2009, 05:43:22 PM »
Wow, this is sad... Lol.
I guess all humans have mental problems since we believe the Earth exists...

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #49 on: December 13, 2009, 04:20:05 AM »
11 days and counting. This really is sad.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #50 on: December 13, 2009, 04:34:09 AM »
OK this is the deal: if nobody posts an example of a phenomenon explained by FET and not by RET within the next 24 hours then it will be regarded as the FES official policy that there are no such examples, and that it is impossible to disprove a round earth. Hence, it will also be impossible to prove a flat earth as you cannot demonstrate superiority of the flat earth model.
Non-disputation of this assertion will be taken as acknowledgement of the validity of the statement.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #51 on: December 13, 2009, 04:36:21 AM »
I've disproved RET numerous times. Do a forum search for "Monterey".

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #52 on: December 13, 2009, 05:21:11 AM »
I've disproved RET numerous times. Do a forum search for "Monterey".

Doing a search for Monterey brings up only your post here. No other results. Do you wish to clarify what you mean here please?
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #54 on: December 13, 2009, 07:40:34 AM »
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19145.msg349679#msg349679

And yet you are still unable (or unwilling) to provide photographic documentation of this phenomenon.
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.

Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #55 on: December 13, 2009, 07:55:16 AM »
I am going to respond to this phenomenon in the spirit of a FETer. This phenomenon is due to quantum reflective Aether, quantum reflective aether spreads itself just above all large bodies of water and reflects light around the earth following it's curvature hence this is why you are able to see accross a distance 33.4 miles accross a large body of water.

Of course because it's quantum reflect aether it doesn't always have this property, indeed it only actually does this when Tom is looking over bodies of water, this neatly explains why no-one else agrees that this effect exists and why he is unable to provide a photograph, Quantum reflective Aether also worked for Rowbotham and Lady Blount.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #56 on: December 13, 2009, 08:08:27 AM »
Or, plain old atmospheric refraction.
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.

Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #57 on: December 13, 2009, 08:09:44 AM »
But that wouldn't explain why only Tom can see it.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #58 on: December 13, 2009, 08:38:13 AM »
Actually, there are many documented cases of people seeing things well over the horizon due to refractive phenomena.  One such phenomenon is known as "looming". http://einhornpress.com/loominglightrefraction.aspx
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.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Disproving RET - a challenge
« Reply #59 on: December 13, 2009, 09:17:12 AM »
I love the way Bishop posts a link to something and then assumes that we won't read the rest of the thread after that post. RET has several explanations for why Bishop's claim may be true: firstly refractive phenomena, secondly the variation in land height from one place to another as the earth is not a perfect sphere any more than it would be a perfect flat plane. Therefore, RET provides an explanation for this isolated phenomenon (which is not observed anywhere else, strangely). That is of course if we are expected to just take Bishop's word for it - something he would never do because it's un-zetetic.
I'd be interested in how Bishop thinks this is compatible with the sinking ship effect as well. You can't have it both ways.
Conclusion: no disproof of RET.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.