The flat Earth theory isn't remotely possible.

Exactly, why give the FE trolls all the fun?

I'll just go ahead and say it, the equation I learned was as follows:

E=mc²

Now can we get back to the topic of this thread?

If you can call it a topic  I was kind of hoping for some real debate rather then childish trolling... perhaps if some good solid math or a strong physical indicator that attempts to build an objective basis for FE this could actually get interesting!

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 08:33:55 PM

In FE, the Earth is not a planet.  And asteroids are made of the same things as planets, right?  Why aren't they round?

asteroids=/=planet=satellite

Quote

Planet:mass large enough that gravity collapses itself into a sphere like object

RE just gets stranger and stranger.  So stars and the moon in RET are planets too?

Quote

In an illogical way yes it is valid.
unfortunately it is a false reductio ad absurdam. just because we can assume the composition of juipiter,

It's perfectly valid, you just don't want to admit you're wrong (or can't grasp it).  We can't assume the composition of Jupiter, and even if we could, we can't assume anything about the state of things surrounding its formation.  The same can be said for the Earth.  Keep randomly tossing fallacies out while acting like an authority, though.  It's cute.

No, because planets must orbit stars, and moons must orbit planets.
Uh yes we can. we just assume everything is made of mass, and go from there. It isn't random. that is exactly the fallacy(ies) that you used

Quote from: Space Tourist on May 18, 2010, 03:47:26 AM

Now your just trolling again 

Why is it called trolling when Parsifal points out critical flaws in your argument?  Are you suggesting that we simply ignore your inaccuracies and instead try to decipher what we think you are trying to say?

because it is obvious trolling. Parsifal claims to be a student of physics, yet doesn't know that m means mass in E=mc^2
http://velocity.ansto.gov.au/velocity/ans0008/article_02.asp

because it is obvious trolling. Parsifal claims to be a student of physics, yet doesn't know that m means mass in E=mc^2
http://velocity.ansto.gov.au/velocity/ans0008/article_02.asp

We were discussing the equation E=MC², not E=mc².

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 18, 2010, 08:36:54 AM

because it is obvious trolling. Parsifal claims to be a student of physics, yet doesn't know that m means mass in E=mc^2
http://velocity.ansto.gov.au/velocity/ans0008/article_02.asp

We were discussing the equation E=MC², not E=mc².

so suppose Spacetourist put down the wrong equation.
If you substitute the proper one, like the one above, does that change the correctness of his post?

so suppose Spacetourist put down the wrong equation.
If you substitute the proper one, like the one above, does that change the correctness of his post?

That's much like saying that if you write F=G*m₁*m₂/r² in a physics exam instead of F=ma, you should still be marked correct because if you had used the right equation your answer would have been correct.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 18, 2010, 10:43:36 AM

so suppose Spacetourist put down the wrong equation.
If you substitute the proper one, like the one above, does that change the correctness of his post?

That's much like saying that if you write F=G*m₁*m₂/r² in a physics exam instead of F=ma, you should still be marked correct because if you had used the right equation your answer would have been correct.

did you know what he meant?
This isn't an exam

did you know what he meant?
This isn't an exam

It doesn't matter if I knew what he meant. If he doesn't understand the subject well enough to use appropriate language and conventions, he shouldn't be using it in his argument.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 18, 2010, 11:23:27 AM

did you know what he meant?
This isn't an exam

It doesn't matter if I knew what he meant. If he doesn't understand the subject well enough to use appropriate language and conventions, he shouldn't be using it in his argument.

So becaue he capitalized, his arguement is invalid?
do you think he considered M to mean mass and C to be the speed of light?
in that case, wouldn't what he was trying to convey be correct?

Eh It was a typo from a cut and past of site using a different font set.
Ether way the math is the same but if you want to make a big deal about a typo.... we can see how you dont have much else to stand on.

No, because planets must orbit stars, and moons must orbit planets.

Oh, it gets better.  Now you're interchanging semantics with real facts.  Planets must orbit stars because that's the definition that's been assigned to them.  The same with moons.  Also, I'm not sure you grasp that in FET the Earth is not a planet.  So anything that must be said is true about planets don't apply to the Earth, if you're considering things from the FE point of view.

Uh yes we can. we just assume everything is made of mass, and go from there.

Mass is not a substance.  I can tell I'm dealing with a real mind here.

It isn't random. that is exactly the fallacy(ies) that you used

  When?

 

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 18, 2010, 08:32:31 AM

No, because planets must orbit stars, and moons must orbit planets.

Oh, it gets better.  Now you're interchanging semantics with real facts.  Planets must orbit stars because that's the definition that's been assigned to them.  The same with moons.  Also, I'm not sure you grasp that in FET the Earth is not a planet.  So anything that must be said is true about planets don't apply to the Earth, if you're considering things from the FE point of view.

Quote

Uh yes we can. we just assume everything is made of mass, and go from there.

Mass is not a substance.  I can tell I'm dealing with a real mind here.

Quote

It isn't random. that is exactly the fallacy(ies) that you used

  When?

 

Umm, the thing is like this. Planets are large objects whose on mass crushes it into a sphere.
We know this by the fact that the earth is made of matter, so it has mass. Planets also revolve around the sun,
because thats how that mass formed, orbiting the sun.

And your fallacy, was the dog brain thing

Quote from: Lorddave on May 17, 2010, 08:07:46 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 17, 2010, 08:04:28 PM

Quote from: Ranko on May 17, 2010, 07:51:06 PM

Buuut, you can see Jupiter's moons orbiting with the most basic telescope, they wouldn't orbit a flat disc,  nor would anything that far away have an inclination to face earth at all times for the illusion to hold.

So if Jupiter is round, and it has moons, and earth has a moon, we are flat?

I have a brain, my dog has a brain, I can play an intelligent game of chess... so by your logic my dog can too?

Function is not the same as composition.

A piece of metal can be used as a hammer, something to write on, or a dangerous weapon.  Just because their function is different doesn't mean it isn't made of the same things with the same properties.

All we need to do is say that the Earth is made of the same things (atoms) as Jupiter and we can conclude that the same things that govern the Atoms on Earth govern the atoms on Jupiter.

That's not what he was saying, though, so what's the relevance?  

And obviously if Jupiter and Earth are both composed of atoms (not proven, by the way), they are governed by the same laws.  Conditions at the time of their formation could have altered their shapes.  I've always thought the Earth's direct contact with the Universal Accelerator could be the reason somehow that the Earth came out flat.  Or, it could be its size itself.  The flat Earth is much larger than anything else in the known universe so it would be naive to assume that it would form in the same way.

Conditions at the time of their creation DID alter their shapes(very slightly) and composition but they're both still bound by the same rules.

Still not sure how you figured the Earth is larger than anything else in the known universe.  Jupiter's size dwarfs us.  How do I know?  Parallax measurements are a good one.  That gives us distance.  Then we take it's apparent size in the sky and use that and the distance to determine it's true size.

And while you are accurate in saying that we have not proven that Jupiter is made up of atoms, the simple fact that everything that's fallen from space is made up of atoms and we haven't found anything NOT made up of atoms (aside from Energy), then I don't think it's a leap of faith to say that everything solid appears to be made up of atoms.

Unless all the planets are nothing but holograms.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 17, 2010, 08:19:09 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 17, 2010, 08:07:46 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 17, 2010, 08:04:28 PM

Quote from: Ranko on May 17, 2010, 07:51:06 PM

Buuut, you can see Jupiter's moons orbiting with the most basic telescope, they wouldn't orbit a flat disc,  nor would anything that far away have an inclination to face earth at all times for the illusion to hold.

So if Jupiter is round, and it has moons, and earth has a moon, we are flat?

I have a brain, my dog has a brain, I can play an intelligent game of chess... so by your logic my dog can too?

Function is not the same as composition.

A piece of metal can be used as a hammer, something to write on, or a dangerous weapon.  Just because their function is different doesn't mean it isn't made of the same things with the same properties.

All we need to do is say that the Earth is made of the same things (atoms) as Jupiter and we can conclude that the same things that govern the Atoms on Earth govern the atoms on Jupiter.

That's not what he was saying, though, so what's the relevance?  

And obviously if Jupiter and Earth are both composed of atoms (not proven, by the way), they are governed by the same laws.  Conditions at the time of their formation could have altered their shapes.  I've always thought the Earth's direct contact with the Universal Accelerator could be the reason somehow that the Earth came out flat.  Or, it could be its size itself.  The flat Earth is much larger than anything else in the known universe so it would be naive to assume that it would form in the same way.

Conditions at the time of their creation DID alter their shapes(very slightly) and composition but they're both still bound by the same rules.

Still not sure how you figured the Earth is larger than anything else in the known universe.  Jupiter's size dwarfs us.  How do I know?  Parallax measurements are a good one.  That gives us distance.  Then we take it's apparent size in the sky and use that and the distance to determine it's true size.

And while you are accurate in saying that we have not proven that Jupiter is made up of atoms, the simple fact that everything that's fallen from space is made up of atoms and we haven't found anything NOT made up of atoms (aside from Energy), then I don't think it's a leap of faith to say that everything solid appears to be made up of atoms.

Unless all the planets are nothing but holograms.

NASA did prove that it was atoms.

heck, the fact that it reflected light showed that.
I think most poeple here have forgotten how light works
http://science.howstuffworks.com/light10.htm

Quote from: Lorddave on May 18, 2010, 04:22:45 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 17, 2010, 08:19:09 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 17, 2010, 08:07:46 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 17, 2010, 08:04:28 PM

Quote from: Ranko on May 17, 2010, 07:51:06 PM

Buuut, you can see Jupiter's moons orbiting with the most basic telescope, they wouldn't orbit a flat disc,  nor would anything that far away have an inclination to face earth at all times for the illusion to hold.

So if Jupiter is round, and it has moons, and earth has a moon, we are flat?

I have a brain, my dog has a brain, I can play an intelligent game of chess... so by your logic my dog can too?

Function is not the same as composition.

A piece of metal can be used as a hammer, something to write on, or a dangerous weapon.  Just because their function is different doesn't mean it isn't made of the same things with the same properties.

All we need to do is say that the Earth is made of the same things (atoms) as Jupiter and we can conclude that the same things that govern the Atoms on Earth govern the atoms on Jupiter.

That's not what he was saying, though, so what's the relevance?  

And obviously if Jupiter and Earth are both composed of atoms (not proven, by the way), they are governed by the same laws.  Conditions at the time of their formation could have altered their shapes.  I've always thought the Earth's direct contact with the Universal Accelerator could be the reason somehow that the Earth came out flat.  Or, it could be its size itself.  The flat Earth is much larger than anything else in the known universe so it would be naive to assume that it would form in the same way.

Conditions at the time of their creation DID alter their shapes(very slightly) and composition but they're both still bound by the same rules.

Still not sure how you figured the Earth is larger than anything else in the known universe.  Jupiter's size dwarfs us.  How do I know?  Parallax measurements are a good one.  That gives us distance.  Then we take it's apparent size in the sky and use that and the distance to determine it's true size.

And while you are accurate in saying that we have not proven that Jupiter is made up of atoms, the simple fact that everything that's fallen from space is made up of atoms and we haven't found anything NOT made up of atoms (aside from Energy), then I don't think it's a leap of faith to say that everything solid appears to be made up of atoms.

Unless all the planets are nothing but holograms.

NASA did prove that it was atoms.

heck, the fact that it reflected light showed that.
I think most poeple here have forgotten how light works
http://science.howstuffworks.com/light10.htm

Ahh but what if they're not atoms but something that appears to be have exactly like atoms but aren't?

Yes, that's what I'd expect an FE response to be, which is why I said it: They don't accept my FE explanations.

NASA did prove that it was atoms.

Have you missed the fact that we don't trust NASA here?

These silly word games are growing tiresome.  What Jupiter is composed of is academic.  I just want proof that Jupiter and the Earth formed in exactly the same way.  That's all.  If you're sure this is the case, if you're sure there weren't factors you're not taking into consideration that would have caused the two bodies to come out differently, prove it.  Tell me how you can state with certainty that RE understanding of the formation of the solar system is absolutely correct, and that you're not just taking it for granted.

Set your absurd logical arguments aside, and show me the proof.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 18, 2010, 04:37:33 PM

NASA did prove that it was atoms.

Have you missed the fact that we don't trust NASA here?

These silly word games are growing tiresome.  What Jupiter is composed of is academic.  I just want proof that Jupiter and the Earth formed in exactly the same way.  That's all.  If you're sure this is the case, if you're sure there weren't factors you're not taking into consideration that would have caused the two bodies to come out differently, prove it.  Tell me how you can state with certainty that RE understanding of the formation of the solar system is absolutely correct, and that you're not just taking it for granted.

Set your absurd logical arguments aside, and show me the proof.

What Jupiter is composed of is not academic if you have a theory that says the formation of a body depends on its contents.
You can prove that any body as big as the earth made of matter will turn into a ellipsoid like object. Use Venus. both are made of matter. if you can show that venus turned into a planet (it is) and show that that many divided molecules will clump together in an ellipsoid with physics simulators (it will), then you have shown that if the earth is made of atoms, then it will clump together as an ellipsoid.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 18, 2010, 07:14:25 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 18, 2010, 04:37:33 PM

NASA did prove that it was atoms.

Have you missed the fact that we don't trust NASA here?

These silly word games are growing tiresome.  What Jupiter is composed of is academic.  I just want proof that Jupiter and the Earth formed in exactly the same way.  That's all.  If you're sure this is the case, if you're sure there weren't factors you're not taking into consideration that would have caused the two bodies to come out differently, prove it.  Tell me how you can state with certainty that RE understanding of the formation of the solar system is absolutely correct, and that you're not just taking it for granted.

Set your absurd logical arguments aside, and show me the proof.

What Jupiter is composed of is not academic if you have a theory that says the formation of a body depends on its contents.
You can prove that any body as big as the earth made of matter will turn into a ellipsoid like object. Use Venus. both are made of matter. if you can show that venus turned into a planet (it is) and show that that many divided molecules will clump together in an ellipsoid with physics simulators (it will), then you have shown that if the earth is made of atoms, then it will clump together as an ellipsoid.

No, I didn't ask for theory.  I asked for proof.  I'm waiting.

Roundy, Your avatar is Steven Colbert, a public member of the Bavarian Illuminati and the evil conspiracy. There fore you must be a member of the conspiracy, Please refrain from conspiring in the future 

Roundy, Your avatar is Steven Colbert, a public member of the Bavarian Illuminati and the evil conspiracy. There fore you must be a member of the conspiracy, Please refrain from conspiring in the future 

Oh no, my cover's been blown! 

So becaue he capitalized, his arguement is invalid?
do you think he considered M to mean mass and C to be the speed of light?
in that case, wouldn't what he was trying to convey be correct?

Yes, but as I said, if he's going to go against convention he needs to clearly define his terms. He didn't do that.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 18, 2010, 11:34:04 AM

So becaue he capitalized, his arguement is invalid?
do you think he considered M to mean mass and C to be the speed of light?
in that case, wouldn't what he was trying to convey be correct?

Yes, but as I said, if he's going to go against convention he needs to clearly define his terms. He didn't do that.

well I am for him.
does E=mc²? and did you post that retort just to troll, or did you do it because you honestly thought that he didn't mean m=mass and c=the speed of light in a vacuum?

well I am for him.

You cannot define the terms of someone else's equation for them.

E=mc²

E= Energy
m= Mass
c= The speed of light in a vacuum

Those are the variables in the equation and the terms were defined by Einstein. Are you really not familiar with this equation? Do you think Thevoiceofreason is changing how the terms are defined?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 19, 2010, 10:42:51 AM

well I am for him.

You cannot define the terms of someone else's equation for them.

Why not?

Clearly he missed this post http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39006.msg972474#msg972474
IT WAS A TYPO 

Quote from: Averti on May 18, 2010, 05:09:51 AM

sorry, I'm not familiar with "bendy light expert" conventions, However I am well versed in Systems theory,atmospheric and geophysics and spatial analysis... perhaps you could go easy on us less intelligent posters and understand we have difficulty understanding your far advanced conventions? 

The conventions to which I refer are part of fundamental physics. If you're not familiar with fundamental physics, why are you attempting to use it in your argument?

You are always a pedant to the nth degree. When will you give it up? It proves absolutely nothing.