Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?

  • 19 Replies
  • 2185 Views
Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« on: May 18, 2010, 03:16:46 PM »
It seems to me that the flat earth society forum is composed of a much greater number of round earth believers than flat earth believers, and the flat earth believers are noticeably more quiet succinct and vague in their responses if they respond at all. Am I just catching the FE'rs on a bad day?


?

Thomas

  • 72
  • Standing at the Edge of the World
Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2010, 03:26:45 PM »
It seems to me that the flat earth society forum is composed of a much greater number of round earth believers than flat earth believers, and the flat earth believers are noticeably more quiet succinct and vague in their responses if they respond at all. Am I just catching the FE'rs on a bad day?



I think that's because every single argument that could have occurred on these forums have, at least 549 times.  The RE'ers seem to overly enjoy rehashing their treasured memories of attempting to refute FET; the FE'ers, meanwhile, have gotten tired of it and aren't very willing to jump into the cycle for the 550th time.
"A procession of the damned. By the damned, I mean the excluded. We shall have a procession of data that Science has excluded. Battalions of the accursed, captained by pallid data that I have exhumed, will march. You'll read them -- or they'll march." - Charles Fort

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2010, 03:30:47 PM »
Moved to the General board.


Yes, there are probably more RE'ers here than FE'ers. Not sure what you mean about vague responses though.
"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: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2010, 03:34:43 PM »
It seems to me that the flat earth society forum is composed of a much greater number of round earth believers than flat earth believers, and the flat earth believers are noticeably more quiet succinct and vague in their responses if they respond at all. Am I just catching the FE'rs on a bad day?



I think that's because every single argument that could have occurred on these forums have, at least 549 times.  The RE'ers seem to overly enjoy rehashing their treasured memories of attempting to refute FET; the FE'ers, meanwhile, have gotten tired of it and aren't very willing to jump into the cycle for the 550th time.

That's a fairly prejudiced statement. Anyway, you would think FE'rs would take a proper stand and have a formidable argument... in fact if they are so polished in their responses, they could merely cut and paste old arguments.. the reason they can't (and I have now read a number of their threads) is because the bulk of their arguments are one-liner dismissals and half-truths, or of course, the fall-back argument of yelling conspiracy.


Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2010, 03:35:59 PM »
Moved to the General board.


Yes, there are probably more RE'ers here than FE'ers. Not sure what you mean about vague responses though.

Well vague meaning the gauntlet was thrown in the form of multiple varieties of experiments that meet general scientific criteria to prove the earth is spherical... whereas the FE'rs rely on fanciful dreams of sky mirrors and such, and provide nothing of the same caliber as the RE'rs.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2010, 03:39:29 PM »
Moved to the General board.


Yes, there are probably more RE'ers here than FE'ers. Not sure what you mean about vague responses though.

Well vague meaning the gauntlet was thrown in the form of multiple varieties of experiments that meet general scientific criteria to prove the earth is spherical... whereas the FE'rs rely on fanciful dreams of sky mirrors and such, and provide nothing of the same caliber as the RE'rs.


Most of the experiments proposed have not been thought through, and when FE'ers explain why, RE'ers prefer to think we're making up excuses, instead of realising that their experiment doesn't work. If you actually read and pay attention to the criticisms made, you'll see they're perfectly valid and entirely justified.
"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

?

Thomas

  • 72
  • Standing at the Edge of the World
Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2010, 03:52:29 PM »
It seems to me that the flat earth society forum is composed of a much greater number of round earth believers than flat earth believers, and the flat earth believers are noticeably more quiet succinct and vague in their responses if they respond at all. Am I just catching the FE'rs on a bad day?



I think that's because every single argument that could have occurred on these forums have, at least 549 times.  The RE'ers seem to overly enjoy rehashing their treasured memories of attempting to refute FET; the FE'ers, meanwhile, have gotten tired of it and aren't very willing to jump into the cycle for the 550th time.

That's a fairly prejudiced statement. Anyway, you would think FE'rs would take a proper stand and have a formidable argument... in fact if they are so polished in their responses, they could merely cut and paste old arguments.. the reason they can't (and I have now read a number of their threads) is because the bulk of their arguments are one-liner dismissals and half-truths, or of course, the fall-back argument of yelling conspiracy.



Truth is never prejudiced; it is just unpleasant at times.  About as unpleasant as copy-and-pasting old arguments to make the RE'ers turn pink and giddy because they want to try their hand at refuting the same handful of arguments for the next ten years. 

Whatever argument you wanted "polished responses" for, they've already been given ad nauseam; just sift through the anti-Zetetic babble to find it.  If your virgin eyes are heartily offended by the "conspiracy yelling" or whatever else, no one is forcing you to stay. Not even the armed, inbred Ice Wall guards who have been enslaved to protect the abysmal hinterland beyond known civilization.   ;D
"A procession of the damned. By the damned, I mean the excluded. We shall have a procession of data that Science has excluded. Battalions of the accursed, captained by pallid data that I have exhumed, will march. You'll read them -- or they'll march." - Charles Fort

Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2010, 04:03:06 PM »
Moved to the General board.


Yes, there are probably more RE'ers here than FE'ers. Not sure what you mean about vague responses though.

Well vague meaning the gauntlet was thrown in the form of multiple varieties of experiments that meet general scientific criteria to prove the earth is spherical... whereas the FE'rs rely on fanciful dreams of sky mirrors and such, and provide nothing of the same caliber as the RE'rs.


Most of the experiments proposed have not been thought through, and when FE'ers explain why, RE'ers prefer to think we're making up excuses, instead of realising that their experiment doesn't work. If you actually read and pay attention to the criticisms made, you'll see they're perfectly valid and entirely justified.

Well I tried searching for an answer to what I thought was the most obvious proof/disproof, and that is meeasuring curvature using a triangle... in fact there's a whole set of geometrical proofs that are essentially what is used in geometry to define a euclidean vs noneuclidean surface. Have not found any response to this.. if u have seen it plz point me to the thread so I may see what the fe gospel says.

Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2010, 04:07:56 PM »
It seems to me that the flat earth society forum is composed of a much greater number of round earth believers than flat earth believers, and the flat earth believers are noticeably more quiet succinct and vague in their responses if they respond at all. Am I just catching the FE'rs on a bad day?




I think that's because every single argument that could have occurred on these forums have, at least 549 times.  The RE'ers seem to overly enjoy rehashing their treasured memories of attempting to refute FET; the FE'ers, meanwhile, have gotten tired of it and aren't very willing to jump into the cycle for the 550th time.

That's a fairly prejudiced statement. Anyway, you would think FE'rs would take a proper stand and have a formidable argument... in fact if they are so polished in their responses, they could merely cut and paste old arguments.. the reason they can't (and I have now read a number of their threads) is because the bulk of their arguments are one-liner dismissals and half-truths, or of course, the fall-back argument of yelling conspiracy.



Truth is never prejudiced; it is just unpleasant at times.  About as unpleasant as copy-and-pasting old arguments to make the RE'ers turn pink and giddy because they want to try their hand at refuting the same handful of arguments for the next ten years. 

Whatever argument you wanted "polished responses" for, they've already been given ad nauseam; just sift through the anti-Zetetic babble to find it.  If your virgin eyes are heartily offended by the "conspiracy yelling" or whatever else, no one is forcing you to stay. Not even the armed, inbred Ice Wall guards who have been enslaved to protect the abysmal hinterland beyond known civilization.   ;D

I have only seen a few threads, you want to put your theory to a test or is testing ideas a novel concept? Let's take any few threads and count the fe responses vs re and see how many truly extensive scientific fe posts we find.

*

Lorddave

  • 15972
Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« Reply #9 on: May 18, 2010, 04:10:20 PM »
Pfft.  Polished responses... that's a good one.

The entire basis for any and all Flat Earth responses is "The Earth is flat so therefore..." followed by an alternate idea to explain an observation.  That's not science.

Sky Mirror, for example, wasn't brought about because that's the first thought that came into your head when you looked up into the sky.  It came about because you had to explain how the stars moved and why only half the planet could see specific stars when the Earth is flat.

Or Bendy light.  Without any evidence, experiments, or capability to predict it, bendy light was brought forth to explain away why ships do appear to sink into the horizon or why the sun sinks into the horizon.

FET is nothing more than Anti-Round Earth Universe.  


And what about Earth Not a Globe?
Well, aside from most of the book being absolute garbage, as said by Mr. Davis himself, it's nothing but a bunch of thought experiments and the one experiment that IS performed, is explained with light refraction due to temperature difference, something that can be repeated in a laboratory.

And what about the spotlight sun?
That's there because on a flat Earth you can't have a globe sun: Would be visible all the time.  So instead of going the logical course, that the sun simply moves out of our field of vision while going into the field of vision for others, you insist that it shines light ONLY on a specific area and while you COULD see the rest of the sun if it was a globe, you can't because the part that you can see is black with no light bouncing off it, thus making it as invisible as a black flashlight in a light-less room.  You then have to add on to that idea in order for it to continue to function yet are unable to provide any kind of accurate map to show HOW it works, the cone size of the light, ect..  Again, all of it is to disprove the Round Earth model instead of proving the Flat Earth model.  

Hell, is there even an experiment to measure the Sun's dimensions?  Emissions?  Sun-spots?  Or is SOHO also part of the great conspiracy?


The Flat Earth mindset is one of dismissal and I don't see that ever changing.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« Reply #10 on: May 18, 2010, 04:17:10 PM »
I think it's rather unfair to accuse the RE'ers of just rehashing memories of refuting FET - we do keep coming up with new ways to refute it that haven't been done before.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« Reply #11 on: May 18, 2010, 04:18:24 PM »
Moved to the General board.


Yes, there are probably more RE'ers here than FE'ers. Not sure what you mean about vague responses though.

Well vague meaning the gauntlet was thrown in the form of multiple varieties of experiments that meet general scientific criteria to prove the earth is spherical... whereas the FE'rs rely on fanciful dreams of sky mirrors and such, and provide nothing of the same caliber as the RE'rs.


Most of the experiments proposed have not been thought through, and when FE'ers explain why, RE'ers prefer to think we're making up excuses, instead of realising that their experiment doesn't work. If you actually read and pay attention to the criticisms made, you'll see they're perfectly valid and entirely justified.

Actually, I haven't ever seen any RE experiment that didn't work, only FE's making up an alternative explanation.

The reason why this keeps going is because FE is always coming up with new ideas, every single individual. It's so bad that there's not even "the FET". It have to be plural.
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« Reply #12 on: May 18, 2010, 04:55:55 PM »
I have proposed two experiments which were ignored by the flat earth supporters. Both of them were well defined, relatively cheap and easy to do, and would yield conclusive results.

One was about the GPS device, proving that the earth must be either spherical or "infinite-and-rectangular-flat". The other was to test bendy light and find out the shape of the earth based on the direction of the sunlight received at different times of the day. If they weren't good experiments, nobody even bothered to explain why.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17558
Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« Reply #13 on: May 18, 2010, 04:59:02 PM »
Moved to the General board.


Yes, there are probably more RE'ers here than FE'ers. Not sure what you mean about vague responses though.

Well vague meaning the gauntlet was thrown in the form of multiple varieties of experiments that meet general scientific criteria to prove the earth is spherical... whereas the FE'rs rely on fanciful dreams of sky mirrors and such, and provide nothing of the same caliber as the RE'rs.


If you're interested in reading Flat Earth arguments there's a wiki, in addition to a library of literature.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« Reply #14 on: May 18, 2010, 05:20:30 PM »

If you're interested in reading Tom Bishop's opinions on Flat Earth there's a wiki, in addition to one book written by a crank.

Fixed.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16560
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« Reply #15 on: May 19, 2010, 08:45:00 AM »

If you're interested in reading Tom Bishop's opinions on Flat Earth there's a wiki, in addition to one book written by a crank.

Fixed.
How is it that you think the entirety of flat earth literature is contained within 1 book by 1 author?  Are you really that ignorant even after all this time?
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« Reply #16 on: May 19, 2010, 09:31:05 AM »

If you're interested in reading Tom Bishop's opinions on Flat Earth there's a wiki, in addition to one book written by a crank.

Fixed.
How is it that you think the entirety of flat earth literature is contained within 1 book by 1 author?  Are you really that ignorant even after all this time?

Oh for goodness sake Davis, lighten up. It was a jokey remark to highlight Bishop's constant yapping to read one particular book (you know the one) which is the only book on flat earth that gets regularly mentioned on the forums in general and in every post by Bishop. I doubt that anyone else didn't realise the pitch of the comment, even if they didn't think it was funny. Well, maybe Parsy, but implicit content has never been his strong point.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« Reply #17 on: May 19, 2010, 09:32:28 AM »
And by "every post by Bishop" he means it figuratively not literally.
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« Reply #18 on: May 19, 2010, 09:37:01 AM »
And by "every post by Bishop" he means it figuratively not literally.

Thankyou. Correct.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: Flat Earth Society - Misnomer?
« Reply #19 on: May 20, 2010, 11:13:08 AM »

If you're interested in reading Tom Bishop's opinions on Flat Earth there's a wiki, in addition to one book written by a crank.

Fixed.
How is it that you think the entirety of flat earth literature is contained within 1 book by 1 author?  Are you really that ignorant even after all this time?

Oh for goodness sake Davis, lighten up. It was a jokey remark to highlight Bishop's constant yapping to read one particular book (you know the one) which is the only book on flat earth that gets regularly mentioned on the forums in general and in every post by Bishop. I doubt that anyone else didn't realise the pitch of the comment, even if they didn't think it was funny. Well, maybe Parsy, but implicit content has never been his strong point.


If it was a jokey comment, then no doubt you'll happily state that you do not believe Rowbotham is a crank. Because I'll be honest, I too thought it was not so much a jokey comment as a cheap put-down, and one deserving to be questioned given its innaccuracy.
"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