FET evidence?

Reductio ad absurdum.  Rocks and giraffes look nothing alike when observed via spectrometer.  Rocks and giraffes don't have similar motion.  Rocks and giraffes don't exert similar properties.

However, they both appear to be made of matter, they can be similar sizes, and similar shapes. They both exist on Earth, and in similar locations. They seem to share many characteristics.

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 01, 2010, 09:45:50 PM

This is not evidence that the sun is different than other stars.  It is evidence that, from our perspective, the sun APPEARS different than other stars.  You know how closer things appear bigger, right?

You may as well say that rocks and giraffes are the same thing. They just appear different because of our perspective.

One could also conclude that your mouth and your ass are the same thing just by comparing what comes out of them.

However, they both appear to be made of matter, they can be similar sizes, and similar shapes. They both exist on Earth, and in similar locations. They seem to share many characteristics.

How we define "rock" is different than how we define "giraffe."  They are mutually exclusive.  Our sun, however, fits the definition of a star.  The makeup of our sun is no different than the makeup of a star.  It looks exactly like a star looks.  It acts exactly how a star acts.  This is tautological because our sun is, in fact, a star.  Our sun can't NOT be a star.  It is what it is and it is not what it is not.

Moment of introspection: It's only in a forum like this that I have to clarify how giraffes are different than rocks. 

Lorddave:
1. Who claimed there was no distortion?
2. Look at the moon during an eclipse, you can see the anti-moon blocking light.
3. Please read the wiki page closer.

1. Point.  Still, all EM radiation?  I know of no such thing.  And again, there's no evidence of it.  

2. I'm going to assume you mean lunar eclipse then.  I have seen a lunar eclipse.  I make a point of watching them.
I see the moon turn redish then slowly vanish via shadow.  However I always see the edge around the darkness and I've seen stars.  If there was an object blocking the moon than when it moves to it or away, it should also block stars should it not?

3. And I'm looking for what?  Tom's flashlight analogy?  Has he not heard that a flash light is a cone of light and it's size is because, as you move farther away, the cone is bigger but less intense?  And since the sun doesn't move vertical to the Earth's plane every day, it's a false analogy.  The wall should be the Earth's surface.  So if I stand at the wall and look forward I see a light appear, pass over me, than disappear.  When I follow the light, it does indeed seem bright when it's pointing at me, but take that away and it starts looking like an oval, shrinking in horizontal size until the light disappears completely.

Moment of introspection: It's only in a forum like this that I have to clarify how giraffes are different than rocks. 

Sad, ain't it?

How we define "rock" is different than how we define "giraffe."  They are mutually exclusive.  Our sun, however, fits the definition of a star.

It fits your definition of a star.

The makeup of our sun is no different than the makeup of a star.  It looks exactly like a star looks.

This implies you know the exact make-up of both stars and the sun. Have you personally inspected both of them?

It looks exactly like a star looks.  It acts exactly how a star acts.  This is tautological because our sun is, in fact, a star.  Our sun can't NOT be a star.  It is what it is and it is not what it is not.

Our sun does not act like a star. I've already stated how.

Lorddave:
1. The evidence is in the end result.
2. That fits anti-moon theory. The anti-moon, for currently unknown reasons, does not block stars.
3. Read it again.

Lorddave:
1. The evidence is in the end result.
2. That fits anti-moon theory. The anti-moon, for currently unknown reasons, does not block stars.
3. Read it again.

1. So what you're saying is that you saw that there were different stars in the sky from different points on Earth, knew that you should be able to see every star in the universe from any point on Earth, so thus it had to be something blocking it?

2. .... Well you have no evidence that said anti-moon exists.  You say you do, but the same effect could be seen if the moon orbited a round Earth and the solar system was heliocentric.  Essentially you just admitted that the anti-moon idea is the EXACT same thing as the moon in a Round Earth, heliocentric model.

3. And what should I be reading for?  The glare?  Glare or not, it should shrink.  We're talking about hundreds of miles here.



I don't believe you.  You're not a Flat Earther.
I've been here long enough to spot the true believers from the people who just like to have fun pretending and you seem to be a pretender.  Of course this is unprovable.

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 01, 2010, 10:00:58 PM

How we define "rock" is different than how we define "giraffe."  They are mutually exclusive.  Our sun, however, fits the definition of a star.

It fits your definition of a star.

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 01, 2010, 10:00:58 PM

The makeup of our sun is no different than the makeup of a star.  It looks exactly like a star looks.

This implies you know the exact make-up of both stars and the sun. Have you personally inspected both of them?

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 01, 2010, 10:00:58 PM

It looks exactly like a star looks.  It acts exactly how a star acts.  This is tautological because our sun is, in fact, a star.  Our sun can't NOT be a star.  It is what it is and it is not what it is not.

Our sun does not act like a star. I've already stated how.

Lorddave:
1. The evidence is in the end result.
2. That fits anti-moon theory. The anti-moon, for currently unknown reasons, does not block stars.
3. Read it again.

- It fits THE definition of a star.  Or do you guys have your own dictionary now?
- He's inspected the surface of the sun just as much as you have, I'm sure.  Tell, me, what did you find when you flew up those 3000 miles to that 32 mile wide sun?  You know, when you inspected it to find out what it's made of?
- I missed how you BASELESSLY CLAIM how the sun does not act like a star.
- The anti-moon doesn't block stars?  Not according to James.  Just ask him.  He'll tell you that how you find the damn thing.  Just go outside in the deadly moonlight and look for the black circle with no stars in it.

1. I'm not sure where you got this "you should be able to see every star in the universe from on point on Earth" idea, but yes. It appears something is blocking people in the rimward portion of the Earth from seeing what those on the hubward portion see.

2. That's true. However, that is unlikely because there is no evidence for a round earth.

3. You should be reading for the points you're obviously missing.

- It fits THE definition of a star.  Or do you guys have your own dictionary now?
It fits what you are defining a star is. If I define the star as something else, it's definition changes, to me.
- He's inspected the surface of the sun just as much as you have, I'm sure.  Tell, me, what did you find when you flew up those 3000 miles to that 32 mile wide sun?  You know, when you inspected it to find out what it's made of?
I've never claimed to know the sun's, or the star's, composition.
- I missed how you BASELESSLY CLAIM how the sun does not act like a star.
Look in the sky. You, generally, see them only at opposite times of the day, and there appears to be massive size differences.
- The anti-moon doesn't block stars?  Not according to James.  Just ask him.  He'll tell you that how you find the damn thing.  Just go outside in the deadly moonlight and look for the black circle with no stars in it.
I am not James.

1. I'm not sure where you got this "you should be able to see every star in the universe from on point on Earth" idea, but yes. It appears something is blocking people in the rimward portion of the Earth from seeing what those on the hubward portion see.

2. That's true. However, that is unlikely because there is no evidence for a round earth.

3. You should be reading for the points you're obviously missing.

1. Right.  Could it possibly be say... the Earth? In a Round Earth model, the planet blocks you from seeing those stars.  It also says that the universe surrounds us, not sits above us.  The sky mirror also doesn't explain why stars appear to move as the year goes by, giving way to a new set of stars until eventually going back to the same star configuration after one year has passed.

2. Which is the whole problem with all of FET: It starts with the assumption the Earth is flat and works from there.

3. Can you give me a hint?  Is it the atmospheric magnification?  Because having flown in a plane, I can say that magnification is NOT what it is.  Diffusion yes but not magnification.

Quote from: Sliver on May 01, 2010, 10:20:23 PM

- It fits THE definition of a star.  Or do you guys have your own dictionary now?
It fits what you are defining a star is. If I define the star as something else, it's definition changes, to me.
- He's inspected the surface of the sun just as much as you have, I'm sure.  Tell, me, what did you find when you flew up those 3000 miles to that 32 mile wide sun?  You know, when you inspected it to find out what it's made of?
I've never claimed to know the sun's, or the star's, composition.
- I missed how you BASELESSLY CLAIM how the sun does not act like a star.
Look in the sky. You, generally, see them only at opposite times of the day, and there appears to be massive size differences.
- The anti-moon doesn't block stars?  Not according to James.  Just ask him.  He'll tell you that how you find the damn thing.  Just go outside in the deadly moonlight and look for the black circle with no stars in it.
I am not James.

- OK, just as long as you admit you are changing the accepted definition of a star to suit your needs.  I have to admit, that's a pretty cool debate tactic.
- You may not have claimed to know what the sun is made of, but have certainly claimed to know what it is NOT.
- This can also be explained by saying the reason we see the sun during the day and why it appears larger in the sky is because we are closer to it.  Also, other stars are visible during the day, especially at dusk.  And you would be able to see them all if the sun was not shining so brightly in your eyes.
- No, you're not James, but the statement was made to bring me to another point.  It seems you guys cannot agree on anything other than, "The Earth is flat because it appears to be flat."

1. That does not contradict the sky mirror idea, it simply shows that either the stars, or Earth, are rotating. Also, there are most likely things under the Earth, we just can't see them. There is too much Earth in the way.

2. Because there is no evidence otherwise.

3. Read closer, you'll find it.

- OK, just as long as you admit you are changing the accepted definition of a star to suit your needs.  I have to admit, that's a pretty cool debate tactic.
At a glance, I saw 24 definitions of a "star" there.
- You may not have claimed to know what the sun is made of, but have certainly claimed to know what it is NOT.
So?
- This can also be explained by saying the reason we see the sun during the day and why it appears larger in the sky is because we are closer to it.  Also, other stars are visible during the day, especially at dusk.  And you would be able to see them all if the sun was not shining so brightly in your eyes.
That was a series of unlikely cop-outs, and we both know it.
- No, you're not James, but the statement was made to bring me to another point.  It seems you guys cannot agree on anything other than, "The Earth is flat because it appears to be flat."
Of course, because RET always agree. Especially with Quantum Field Mechanics and General Relativity.

Quote from: markjo on May 01, 2010, 08:10:35 PM

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on May 01, 2010, 07:37:41 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 01, 2010, 07:27:00 PM

I didn't say that there was any contradiction.  You said that the earth appears flat and there is no valid evidence to the contrary.  That sounds an awful lot like you assuming that the evidence for FET is more valid than the evidence for RET.

You are making baseless assumptions.

How so?  You're the one saying that there is no valid evidence for RET.  Are you saying that there is no valid evidence for FET either?

I never claimed that.

Then you're typing an awful lot without actually saying anything.

Then you're typing an awful lot without actually saying anything.

And you're assuming an awful lot without actually reading anything.

Quote from: Sliver on May 01, 2010, 10:37:56 PM

- OK, just as long as you admit you are changing the accepted definition of a star to suit your needs.  I have to admit, that's a pretty cool debate tactic.
At a glance, I saw 24 definitions of a "star" there.
- You may not have claimed to know what the sun is made of, but have certainly claimed to know what it is NOT.
So?
- This can also be explained by saying the reason we see the sun during the day and why it appears larger in the sky is because we are closer to it.  Also, other stars are visible during the day, especially at dusk.  And you would be able to see them all if the sun was not shining so brightly in your eyes.
That was a series of unlikely cop-outs, and we both know it.
- No, you're not James, but the statement was made to bring me to another point.  It seems you guys cannot agree on anything other than, "The Earth is flat because it appears to be flat."
Of course, because RET always agree. Especially with Quantum Field Mechanics and General Relativity.

- And which one matched yours?
- If you have not closely examined the surface of the sun, how do you know what it is NOT made of?  Admit it, you're only guessing.  And poorly at that.
- What was a series of unlikely cop-outs?  My list, or yours?  See, my list was from all of the current accepted data of astronomy, whereas yours was pulled for your ass.
- While it is true, that there are scientists who disagree on certain things, they have things they do agree on.  I mean you guys can't even come up with a consistent fucking map!

I'm going to have to go ahead and lump you in with James and Pongo as trolls who post wacky shit just to get a reaction out of the rest of us.  If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it.

1. That does not contradict the sky mirror idea, it simply shows that either the stars, or Earth, are rotating. Also, there are most likely things under the Earth, we just can't see them. There is too much Earth in the way.

2. Because there is no evidence otherwise.

3. Read closer, you'll find it.

1. Then how can the sky mirror be reflecting anything if the Earth is in the way?  And wouldn't they be pushed up by the UA too?  Possibly even smashing into the solid Earth?

2. No evidence you believe, you mean.

3. Can you be a little more specific?  I'm not sure how many times I have to go over the same entry.

- And which one matched yours?

I thought there was only one definition of what a star is. At least, that's what you implied when you stated

- It fits THE definition of a star.  Or do you guys have your own dictionary now?

- If you have not closely examined the surface of the sun, how do you know what it is NOT made of?  Admit it, you're only guessing.  And poorly at that.

I am assuming based on evidence, yes.

- What was a series of unlikely cop-outs?  My list, or yours? 

Yours

- While it is true, that there are scientists who disagree on certain things, they have things they do agree on.  I mean you guys can't even come up with a consistent fucking map!

So? Scientists have diverging theories, this is not news.

1. Then how can the sky mirror be reflecting anything if the Earth is in the way?  And wouldn't they be pushed up by the UA too?  Possibly even smashing into the solid Earth?

It's reflecting things above the Earth. Everything appears to be affected by UA.

2. No evidence you believe, you mean.

No evidence that is valid.

3. Can you be a little more specific?  I'm not sure how many times I have to go over the same entry.

Read the wiki page.

Well, Ben, the only thing I posted so far that you have not had a poor attempt for a witty comeback was this one...

I'm going to have to go ahead and lump you in with James and Pongo as trolls who post wacky shit just to get a reaction out of the rest of us.  If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it.

So, I'm going to go ahead and assume you don't deny it. 

Quote from: Lorddave on May 01, 2010, 10:51:08 PM

1. Then how can the sky mirror be reflecting anything if the Earth is in the way?  And wouldn't they be pushed up by the UA too?  Possibly even smashing into the solid Earth?

It's reflecting things above the Earth. Everything appears to be affected by UA.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 01, 2010, 10:51:08 PM

2. No evidence you believe, you mean.

No evidence that is valid.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 01, 2010, 10:51:08 PM

3. Can you be a little more specific?  I'm not sure how many times I have to go over the same entry.

Read the wiki page.

1. I seem to be at a disadvantage here.  How can it be reflecting stars above the Earth if we see those stars via the sky mirror?  Wouldn't we see the stars AND their reflection? Is there a diagram I can look at?

2. Valid for you.  But valid for you seems to be things you see with your own eyes.  The abstract is... difficult for you isn't it?

3. Yeah... I've read that specific entry 4 times.  By specific I mean a specific paragraph, point, sentence, ect...  You know, something specific to the wiki page in question.

Well, Ben, the only thing I posted so far that you have not had a poor attempt for a witty comeback was this one...

Quote from: Sliver

I'm going to have to go ahead and lump you in with James and Pongo as trolls who post wacky shit just to get a reaction out of the rest of us.  If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it.

So, I'm going to go ahead and assume you don't deny it. 

Yeah, I did the same thing (more or less).  No reaction.

So I'm going to agree with you sliver.  Ben isn't a true believer, he just likes to get reactions.

1. I seem to be at a disadvantage here.  How can it be reflecting stars above the Earth if we see those stars via the sky mirror?  Wouldn't we see the stars AND their reflection? Is there a diagram I can look at?

2. Valid for you.  But valid for you seems to be things you see with your own eyes.  The abstract is... difficult for you isn't it?

3. Yeah... I've read that specific entry 4 times.  By specific I mean a specific paragraph, point, sentence, ect...  You know, something specific to the wiki page in question.

1. It appears there is something blocking us from seeing either their reflection, or the stars directly.

2. Zeteticm does not rely on the abstract, it relies on repeatable, personally verifiable evidence.

3. You must read the whole page.

So I'm going to agree with you sliver.  Ben isn't a true believer, he just likes to get reactions.

George Scott Fallacy

The Earth appears flat.
There is no valid evidence otherwise.
Why assume otherwise?

Ben appears to be a troll.
There is no valid evidence otherwise.
Why assume otherwise?

Ben appears to be a troll.
There is no valid evidence otherwise.
Why assume otherwise?

Argumentum ad homein and George Scott Fallacy.

Quote from: Sliver on May 02, 2010, 06:34:52 AM

Ben appears to be a troll.
There is no valid evidence otherwise.
Why assume otherwise?

Argumentum ad homein and George Scott Fallacy.

Your statement is not a form of valid evidence and is therefor irrelevant.  And you spelled it wrong.
Argumentum ad hominem.

George Scott Fallacy

Did you know that outside this site, the George Scott Fallacy is pretty much unheard of?  You may want to explain that reference when you use it, especially to noobs.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 01, 2010, 11:05:15 PM

1. I seem to be at a disadvantage here.  How can it be reflecting stars above the Earth if we see those stars via the sky mirror?  Wouldn't we see the stars AND their reflection? Is there a diagram I can look at?

2. Valid for you.  But valid for you seems to be things you see with your own eyes.  The abstract is... difficult for you isn't it?

3. Yeah... I've read that specific entry 4 times.  By specific I mean a specific paragraph, point, sentence, ect...  You know, something specific to the wiki page in question.

1. It appears there is something blocking us from seeing either their reflection, or the stars directly.

2. Zeteticm does not rely on the abstract, it relies on repeatable, personally verifiable evidence.

3. You must read the whole page.

1. Could be the Earth and it's position around the sun.  After all, how can there be evidence of a sky mirror if the sky mirror replicates a Round Earth model universe perfectly?

2. And you've repeatedly and personally verified that there is an Anti-moon?  How often have you landed on it?  And since it breaks all known physics (star light goes through it) it can't be verified can it?

3. You don't know do you?

Quote from: Lorddave on May 01, 2010, 11:06:04 PM

So I'm going to agree with you sliver.  Ben isn't a true believer, he just likes to get reactions.

George Scott Fallacy

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on May 02, 2010, 06:14:46 AM

George Scott Fallacy

Did you know that outside this site, the George Scott Fallacy is pretty much unheard of?  You may want to explain that reference when you use it, especially to noobs.

Yes Please.  A Google Search proved nothing.

disputing someone's stated beliefs without reason

disputing someone's stated beliefs without reason

Ah, thank you.

Well what's the term for when the other party can't be convinced they're wrong no matter what? (like if someone says the sky is purple and even when you take them outside and point to it they still say purple)

Did you know that outside this site, the George Scott Fallacy is pretty much unheard of?  You may want to explain that reference when you use it, especially to noobs.

markjo, what's my policy on lurking?

1. Could be the Earth and it's position around the sun.  After all, how can there be evidence of a sky mirror if the sky mirror replicates a Round Earth model universe perfectly?

2. And you've repeatedly and personally verified that there is an Anti-moon?  How often have you landed on it?  And since it breaks all known physics (star light goes through it) it can't be verified can it?

3. You don't know do you?

1. Because there is no evidence for a round earth.

2. I've verified it's existence. Look at the moon during an eclipse and you can see it blocking light.

3. Obviously I know, otherwise I wouldn't suggest you to read it.

Quote from: Catchpa on May 02, 2010, 09:37:39 AM

disputing someone's stated beliefs without reason

Ah, thank you.

Well what's the term for when the other party can't be convinced they're wrong no matter what? (like if someone says the sky is purple and even when you take them outside and point to it they still say purple)

Dunno, could be something like:

    * Denying the correlative: where attempts are made at introducing alternatives where there are none.
    * Suppressed correlative: where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.

Could be related to:

    * Appeal to probability: assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will  happen.
    * Argument from fallacy: assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion is false.
    * Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.
    * Base rate fallacy: using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability.
    * Nirvana fallacy: when solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect.
    * Proof by example: where examples are offered as inductive proof for a universal proposition. ("This apple is red, therefore all  apples are red.")

Though I'd go with:

    * Negative proof fallacy: that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.

Actually, it could easily be attributed to this:

    * Moving the goalpost (raising the bar): argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded


Basically, it's a shitload of fallacies.