Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?

  • 133 Replies
  • 22754 Views
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #60 on: April 30, 2010, 04:58:10 AM »

This is a flat disc, though, right?

 ;D ;D ;D Indeed it looks like a huge weather system with bio-luminiscent lifeforms to me  ;D ;D ;D

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #61 on: April 30, 2010, 02:26:56 PM »
Obviously, I favor electromagnetic acceleration as the explanation for this phenomenon in FET.

Foolish, as it has been disproved and shown not to display a predicted effect on star positions.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #62 on: April 30, 2010, 02:43:58 PM »
This thread makes me laugh. It's simply too god damn hilarious that people like James can't even understand paintings showing how directions work. Can we consider him, together with levee and Parsifal, to be a user you just have to ignore and wait for other FE answers?
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #63 on: April 30, 2010, 02:47:25 PM »
I'm never quite sure who's trolling and who isn't.  If James doesn't understand that directions by reference frames of one observer can differ from directions given by the reference frame of another observer, I honestly have to suspect he's doing it for laughs.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #64 on: April 30, 2010, 03:00:44 PM »
This thread makes me laugh. It's simply too god damn hilarious that people like James can't even understand paintings showing how directions work. Can we consider him, together with levee and Parsifal, to be a user you just have to ignore and wait for other FE answers?

(On topic as a response to preceding post) Yes, I think we should.
This is why I'm of the opinion that James MUST be a troll OR have serious psychological problems. One or the other are the only viable explanations.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #65 on: April 30, 2010, 05:09:14 PM »
OK, Roundy.  Here is my original post that got us talking.

Quote from: Sliver
You missed his point.  He's saying that at that altitude, people looking at the same object would not be able to see the same area of it's surface.  They would see something different.  Try this at home.  Get a couple buddies.  Have on stand in the middle with a basketball.  You and the other friend sit on the floor opposite sides of the room.  Now have the guy in the middle hold the ball as high as they can and have the writing on it facing just one of you.  Now, can the person across the room see the writing?  No.

You seemed to not understand this point.  So, I provided a diagram for you.

Here you go.  The top picture represents the FE model.  Notice how the figures are viewing opposites sides of the moon?  Now, in the bottom picture shows that when you greatly increase the distance between the surface and the moon, the figures are now viewing almost the same section of the moon.  That better?


After which you seemed to think that this diagram went against my original point.  This is where you lost me.  Please, take another look at my first post, then the diagram, and tell me how they contradict each other.  Otherwise, it just makes it look like you were proven wrong and are trying to act like nothing happened.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #66 on: May 01, 2010, 03:16:32 PM »
It is all very well being subjective about lefts and rights, in fact sometimes it is useful. But there is only one universe, and directions in it are not subjective to individuals, they are the same for everybody. Up is always up.

It seems to me you're getting your terms confused.  "Up" for you is a plain and simple direction.  "Down" for someone on the other side of the planet is also rather obvious.  What you're not getting is that "up" for you and "down" for them are the same spacial direction.  You're getting mixed up by applying the same terms to differing reference frames.

Your diagram is simply wrong, you are so deeply buried in globularist propaganda that you just don't know which way up is and you are drawing arrows all over the place. It's like they spun you around on your head when they brainwashed you! I have given you an arrow of my own to help you but it went in one ear and out of the other (which, by the way, is sideways).

This thread makes me laugh. It's simply too god damn hilarious that people like James can't even understand paintings showing how directions work. Can we consider him, together with levee and Parsifal, to be a user you just have to ignore and wait for other FE answers?

If you ignore everything you don't understand, you will never learn anything. Perhaps that's how you're able to remain a globularist.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #67 on: May 01, 2010, 03:31:08 PM »
By the way people, carry on with original topic and ignore the above guy. Don't let him bait you.
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #68 on: May 01, 2010, 03:34:37 PM »
If you ignore everything you don't understand, you will never learn anything.
Take a minute, reread that statement, and then think about all the evidence that the Earth is round.
Lather, Rinse, and Repeat.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #69 on: May 01, 2010, 03:37:03 PM »
By the way people, carry on with original topic and ignore the above guy. Don't let him bait you.
I have not seen any FE'ers offer a consensus on damn near anything, other than the Earth is flat.  That part they all agree on, but other than that, they tend to lose their collective focus.

Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #70 on: May 02, 2010, 01:42:50 AM »
If you ignore everything you don't understand, you will never learn anything. Perhaps that's how you're I'm able to remain a globularistFlat Earther.

Way to misunderstand my point you tard.

Take a read of the bible, see how you go with taking that literally too.


Go troll somewhere else.

I'm afraid you won't be able to proselytize your religious texts upon me. I am a man of science, I trust only what I know through empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence?!!??! Stop lying. You straight-out REFUSE empirical evidence. Again, FEer's are probably the worst Zetetics I know.





Just search "moon telescope" on Flickr. You can't keep calling the moon a flat disc. It does not agree with EMPIRICAL evidence.


This is a flat disc, though, right?

James. Please. You're embarrassing your FE friends. The moon can be round and you can still believe in FE but you really can't keep arguing that the moon is a flat disc. Oh, and also please stop "ignoring everything you don't understand." I know it's easier to not address the evidence I've presented, but the truth hurts sometimes.

Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #71 on: May 02, 2010, 03:00:31 PM »
Your diagram is simply wrong.

...

If you ignore everything you don't understand, you will never learn anything.

Maybe you're the one ignoring what you don't understand if a diagram as simple as this confuses you.  You're applying the directions of one reference frame to the directions of another reference frame and are failing to catch yourself doing it.  When you point down, you're making the exact same motion as a person on the other side of the world.  The directions you're pointing, however, are different because of your different reference frames.

Look at it.  Seriously look.  Imagine yourself in one reference frame, and think about where you could consider "up" and "down."  Now put yourself into the other reference frame and try the same thing.  Are you honestly not getting this?  Do you really fail to understand?


?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #72 on: May 02, 2010, 09:12:48 PM »
I just think that James is far too simple to understand such ideas.

IHC?

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #73 on: May 03, 2010, 02:43:16 AM »
Maybe you're the one ignoring what you don't understand if a diagram as simple as this confuses you.  You're applying the directions of one reference frame to the directions of another reference frame and are failing to catch yourself doing it.  When you point down, you're making the exact same motion as a person on the other side of the world.  The directions you're pointing, however, are different because of your different reference frames.

Look at it.  Seriously look.  Imagine yourself in one reference frame, and think about where you could consider "up" and "down."  Now put yourself into the other reference frame and try the same thing.  Are you honestly not getting this?  Do you really fail to understand?

Your claims don't comply with Occam's razor. Why should I believe a ridiculously overcomplicated ontology, which has no additional explanatory power, over a much more straightforward one?

FE: Up is up. I can point to it if you want.

RE: Up is sometimes up but if you're down then down is "up", and if you point down then you're really pointing up for a guy who is down, because from his frame of reference down is up and up is down, and your frame of reference is far enough up that his down is up and his up is down, and that up is your up, unless you move in which case that up is now your down, and your new up is your old down, and...
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #74 on: May 03, 2010, 02:50:53 AM »
FE: Up is up. I can point to it if you want.

RE: Up is sometimes up but if you're down then down is "up", and if you point down then you're really pointing up for a guy who is down, because from his frame of reference down is up and up is down, and your frame of reference is far enough up that his down is up and his up is down, and that up is your up, unless you move in which case that up is now your down, and your new up is your old down, and...


Your virus claim doesn't pass Occam's razor.  Why should I believe a ridiculously overcomplicated ontology that has no additional explanatory power, over a much more straightforward one?

Witchcraft: My ailment is caused by a witch's curse.

Chemistry/Biology:  My ailment is caused by a complex virus going by instructions in a strand of nucleotides to use quaternary molecular structures to implant pore proteins into the membranes of my cells, causing them to become more permeable than they should be, allowing in things that shouldn't enter and letting out things that should stay inside...


Your "it's simple so it must be true" argument would've kept us in the dark ages.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #75 on: May 03, 2010, 02:54:08 AM »
FE: Up is up. I can point to it if you want.

RE: Up is sometimes up but if you're down then down is "up", and if you point down then you're really pointing up for a guy who is down, because from his frame of reference down is up and up is down, and your frame of reference is far enough up that his down is up and his up is down, and that up is your up, unless you move in which case that up is now your down, and your new up is your old down, and...


Your virus claim doesn't pass Occam's razor.  Why should I believe a ridiculously overcomplicated ontology that has no additional explanatory power, over a much more straightforward one?

Witchcraft: My ailment is caused by a witch's curse.

Chemistry/Biology:  My ailment is caused by a complex virus going by instructions in a strand of nucleotides to use quaternary molecular structures to implant pore proteins into the membranes of my cells, causing them to become more permeable than they should be, allowing in things that shouldn't enter and letting out things that should stay inside...


Your "it's simple so it must be true" argument would've kept us in the dark ages.

You obviously don't understand how Occam's razor works. It is not positing simplicity at all costs, it posits simplicity in cases with no additional explanatory power. If you can't see the difference between these two cases, you really are unperceptive.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #76 on: May 03, 2010, 02:57:25 AM »
It is not positing simplicity at all costs, it posits simplicity in cases with no additional explanatory power.

What does declaring "up" in your reference frame as the universal "up" yield in additional explanatory power?

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #77 on: May 03, 2010, 02:59:29 AM »
It is not positing simplicity at all costs, it posits simplicity in cases with no additional explanatory power.

What does declaring "up" in your reference frame as the universal "up" yield in additional explanatory power?

Nothing, it yields simplicity - I'm beginning to think you either genuinely don't understand Occam's razor or you are simply being an insufferable pedant.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #78 on: May 03, 2010, 03:05:01 AM »
Yours yields no explanatory power.  Thanks for admitting.

Mine, however, explains why people on the other side of the spheroid Earth define down in the same manner we do.  We all define "down" as the direction of force between our and the Earth's centers of mass.  Considering the shape of our planet, that is actually the most simple answer.  You seem to have a very different explanation for "simple" than I do, because my view of the world doesn't involve numerous unexplained forces that only apply to certain things at certain times.  The FE model has those by the bushel-full.

You still don't seem to get the left-right example either.  I'm done beating this dead horse.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #79 on: May 03, 2010, 06:52:42 AM »
So, after reading this now derailed thread, thank you James, I've concluded that FE'ers do NOT have a consensus on the shape of the moon.

*

The Question1

  • 390
  • Your logic is inferior to my logic.
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #80 on: May 03, 2010, 09:16:57 AM »
It is all very well being subjective about lefts and rights, in fact sometimes it is useful. But there is only one universe, and directions in it are not subjective to individuals, they are the same for everybody. Up is always up.

It seems to me you're getting your terms confused.  "Up" for you is a plain and simple direction.  "Down" for someone on the other side of the planet is also rather obvious.  What you're not getting is that "up" for you and "down" for them are the same spacial direction.  You're getting mixed up by applying the same terms to differing reference frames.

Your diagram is simply wrong, you are so deeply buried in globularist propaganda that you just don't know which way up is and you are drawing arrows all over the place. It's like they spun you around on your head when they brainwashed you! I have given you an arrow of my own to help you but it went in one ear and out of the other (which, by the way, is sideways).

argumentum ad hominem

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #81 on: May 03, 2010, 02:01:47 PM »
It is all very well being subjective about lefts and rights, in fact sometimes it is useful. But there is only one universe, and directions in it are not subjective to individuals, they are the same for everybody. Up is always up.

It seems to me you're getting your terms confused.  "Up" for you is a plain and simple direction.  "Down" for someone on the other side of the planet is also rather obvious.  What you're not getting is that "up" for you and "down" for them are the same spacial direction.  You're getting mixed up by applying the same terms to differing reference frames.

Your diagram is simply wrong, you are so deeply buried in globularist propaganda that you just don't know which way up is and you are drawing arrows all over the place. It's like they spun you around on your head when they brainwashed you! I have given you an arrow of my own to help you but it went in one ear and out of the other (which, by the way, is sideways).

argumentum ad hominem

Sincere observations about sociology.

Yours yields no explanatory power.  Thanks for admitting.

Mine, however, explains why people on the other side of the spheroid Earth define down in the same manner we do.  We all define "down" as the direction of force between our and the Earth's centers of mass.  Considering the shape of our planet, that is actually the most simple answer.  You seem to have a very different explanation for "simple" than I do, because my view of the world doesn't involve numerous unexplained forces that only apply to certain things at certain times.  The FE model has those by the bushel-full.

You are a pedant of the highest degree. I did not claim that the zetetic explanation of up yields no explanatory power, I claimed it yielded no additional explanatory power over the vastly more complicated theoretic explanation. FET explains upness in the most sensible, simple way possible whilst still explaining all the relevant phenomena adequately.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42698
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #82 on: May 03, 2010, 02:59:51 PM »
Maybe you're the one ignoring what you don't understand if a diagram as simple as this confuses you.  You're applying the directions of one reference frame to the directions of another reference frame and are failing to catch yourself doing it.  When you point down, you're making the exact same motion as a person on the other side of the world.  The directions you're pointing, however, are different because of your different reference frames.

Look at it.  Seriously look.  Imagine yourself in one reference frame, and think about where you could consider "up" and "down."  Now put yourself into the other reference frame and try the same thing.  Are you honestly not getting this?  Do you really fail to understand?

Your claims don't comply with Occam's razor. Why should I believe a ridiculously overcomplicated ontology, which has no additional explanatory power, over a much more straightforward one?

FE: Up is up. I can point to it if you want.

RE: Up is sometimes up but if you're down then down is "up", and if you point down then you're really pointing up for a guy who is down, because from his frame of reference down is up and up is down, and your frame of reference is far enough up that his down is up and his up is down, and that up is your up, unless you move in which case that up is now your down, and your new up is your old down, and... the direction directly opposite down (down being the direction towards the center of mass of the earth).

Fixed.

Honestly, I don't see what's so complicated about the RE definition.

BTW James, you don't define a word to be the word that you are defining.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2010, 07:47:56 PM by markjo »
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: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #83 on: May 03, 2010, 07:35:09 PM »
I can't figure out why James is ignoring me...can anyone else??? I thought Zeteticists were interested in the truth, not pushing their own agendas?

 ??? ??? ???

I am so confused.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #84 on: May 04, 2010, 12:31:14 PM »
I can't figure out why James is ignoring me...can anyone else??? I thought Zeteticists were interested in the truth, not pushing their own agendas?

What do you want from me?
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #85 on: May 04, 2010, 05:14:46 PM »
I can't figure out why James is ignoring me...can anyone else??? I thought Zeteticists were interested in the truth, not pushing their own agendas?

What do you want from me?

I want you to explain this: if the moon is very clearly a sphere in loads of empirical evidence but you still hold to a completely unfounded theory that it's a flat disc.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #86 on: May 04, 2010, 05:39:06 PM »
I can't figure out why James is ignoring me...can anyone else??? I thought Zeteticists were interested in the truth, not pushing their own agendas?

What do you want from me?

I want you to explain this: if the moon is very clearly a sphere in loads of empirical evidence but you still hold to a completely unfounded theory that it's a flat disc.

And I want you to explain why the position of Endymion crater shifts positions in my photos and where you get your data on the moon eating itself, which you keep ignoring in the other thread.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #87 on: May 05, 2010, 12:28:56 AM »
What do you want from me?

I want you to explain this: if the moon is very clearly a sphere in loads of empirical evidence but you still hold to a completely unfounded theory that it's a flat disc.

This isn't a truth-evaluable sentence. I literally do not know what you mean.

I can't figure out why James is ignoring me...can anyone else??? I thought Zeteticists were interested in the truth, not pushing their own agendas?

What do you want from me?

I want you to explain this: if the moon is very clearly a sphere in loads of empirical evidence but you still hold to a completely unfounded theory that it's a flat disc.

And I want you to explain why the position of Endymion crater shifts positions in my photos and where you get your data on the moon eating itself, which you keep ignoring in the other thread.

What else would the Moon eat? The crater is living matter, it moves predictably in its hunt for food.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901


?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« Reply #89 on: May 05, 2010, 03:05:47 AM »
The crater is living matter...

Except craters aren't alive.



I suppose someone in the FE ranks must be a very intelligent biologist to assert that the moon's light is caused by bioluminescence. Or that these organisms run back and forth to cause lunar phases. What sort of diet do these things have? Why do they migrate so predictably? Why do they favor only parts of craters?

Anyway, the moon is completely devoid of organic matter... or obviously an atmosphere... what kind of chemistry is involved here? Because, quite frankly, none of it holds up.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2010, 03:14:20 AM by Deceiver »