The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate

Quote from: John Davis on June 22, 2010, 03:36:36 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 22, 2010, 02:11:24 PM

Are you trying to say that just because something might exist that could possibly be described as "aether", your theories about the properties of the aether are correct?

No, I'm saying ether exists in relativity.  Directly from the lectures, notes, letters, and papers of Einstein.  Just because the word ether has a bad rap doesn't mean it is not included in relativity as the physical properties of space.

no need to be so insulting gees. the point is the old notion of aether is non existant. there are new things that could be called aether, but none have been taken up in the scientific community. The spirit of the matter is that aether is no longer valid

And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 06:17:33 AM

And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.

Irrelevant.

Quote from: markjo on June 23, 2010, 02:33:31 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 06:17:33 AM

And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.

Irrelevant.

Actually, it is relevant.  FES's own resources don't meet the documentation standards of a source that you are criticizing for not being properly documented.  Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 02:40:37 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 23, 2010, 02:33:31 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 06:17:33 AM

And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.

Irrelevant.

Actually, it is relevant.  FES's own resources don't meet the documentation standards of a source that you are criticizing for not being properly documented.  Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.

If you see anything wrong with the wiki, feel free to point it out. But no one has proven anything wrong so far.

Quote from: markjo on June 23, 2010, 02:51:35 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 02:40:37 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 23, 2010, 02:33:31 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 06:17:33 AM

And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.

Irrelevant.

Actually, it is relevant.  FES's own resources don't meet the documentation standards of a source that you are criticizing for not being properly documented.  Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.

If you see anything wrong with the wiki, feel free to point it out. But no one has proven anything wrong so far.

I'm not commenting on the accuracy of the wiki (at least not in this thread).  Rather I'm commenting on the lack of references cited in most of the article pages.  Since Tom is responsible for about 2/3 of the wiki pages, he is naturally the worst offender, but many of the other pages lack proper reference citations as well.  This goes to the academic integrity of the wiki. 

Just out of curiosity Johannes, as a FEW editor, how much have you contributed to the wiki?  IMHO, the FE wiki is a great idea and has a lot of potential, but it still needs a lot of work before it can be considered academically viable.

Like perhaps a few sources. The only ones I have seen are just some guy ranting with nothing to back him up.

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 02:40:37 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 23, 2010, 02:33:31 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 06:17:33 AM

And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.

Irrelevant.

Actually, it is relevant.  FES's own resources don't meet the documentation standards of a source that you are criticizing for not being properly documented.  Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.

Whether I'm being hypocritical actually is irrelevant.  

I don't point people towards our faq usually (unless a new user and in which case it is appropriate not to cite everything as the majority of it is first hand information and usually not meant as zomg proof) or towards our wiki and I didn't write any of the wiki.

All this is completely off topic though as I have cited my sources in this argument.

What you are doing is attacking my history of not posting citations, incorrectly, instead of attacking the argument.   This is obviously ad hom and irrelevant.

I don't point people towards our faq usually (unless a new user and in which case it is appropriate not to cite everything as the majority of it is first hand information and usually not meant as zomg proof) or towards our wiki and I didn't write any of the wiki.

Well, actually, you did contribute to the wiki.  OK, you started to, but don't seem to have gotten past the initial outline.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

What you are doing is attacking my history of not posting citations, incorrectly, instead of attacking the argument.   This is obviously ad hom and irrelevant.

No, I'm not attacking your citation habits so much as your attack of Wikipedia's academic integrity when the academic integrity of the official FES wiki leaves much to be desired.

Quote from: markjo on June 23, 2010, 02:33:31 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 06:17:33 AM

And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.

Irrelevant.

It would be special pleading to take the FAQ over Wikipedia

Quote from: markjo on June 23, 2010, 02:51:35 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 02:40:37 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 23, 2010, 02:33:31 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 06:17:33 AM

And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.

Irrelevant.

Actually, it is relevant.  FES's own resources don't meet the documentation standards of a source that you are criticizing for not being properly documented.  Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.

If you see anything wrong with the wiki, feel free to point it out. But no one has proven anything wrong so far.

Yes they have. and they will now
example1: the cause of Sunrise sunset due to perspective.
the sun is 3000km high, and the distance between the sun at the north hemispherical summer between to opposite points on 23.5 north is 133/360*40,000km=14,777km. therefore, at midnight, the sun should be arctan (3/14.= 11.5 degrees above the horizon.

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 02:40:37 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 23, 2010, 02:33:31 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 06:17:33 AM

And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.

Irrelevant.

It would be special pleading to take the FAQ over Wikipedia

WHo mentioned the faq?  I quoted a proper scientist as well as Einstein himself.  You quoted uncited garbage opinion.

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 06:43:56 PM

I don't point people towards our faq usually (unless a new user and in which case it is appropriate not to cite everything as the majority of it is first hand information and usually not meant as zomg proof) or towards our wiki and I didn't write any of the wiki.

Well, actually, you did contribute to the wiki.  OK, you started to, but don't seem to have gotten past the initial outline.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 06:43:56 PM

What you are doing is attacking my history of not posting citations, incorrectly, instead of attacking the argument.   This is obviously ad hom and irrelevant.

No, I'm not attacking your citation habits so much as your attack of Wikipedia's academic integrity when the academic integrity of the official FES wiki leaves much to be desired.

Indeed, I contributed nothing as it is an unfinished article with just an outline.  Unless of course you wanted citations on my outline? Where exactly does this have anything to do with this argument or me?

Furthermore, I'm not criticizing wikipedia, I'm critizing those that don't know how to use it properly.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 23, 2010, 11:01:37 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 02:40:37 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 23, 2010, 02:33:31 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 06:17:33 AM

And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.

Irrelevant.

It would be special pleading to take the FAQ over Wikipedia

WHo mentioned the faq?  I quoted a proper scientist as well as Einstein himself.  You quoted uncited garbage opinion.

Quote from: markjo on June 23, 2010, 07:41:57 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 06:43:56 PM

I don't point people towards our faq usually (unless a new user and in which case it is appropriate not to cite everything as the majority of it is first hand information and usually not meant as zomg proof) or towards our wiki and I didn't write any of the wiki.

Well, actually, you did contribute to the wiki.  OK, you started to, but don't seem to have gotten past the initial outline.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 06:43:56 PM

What you are doing is attacking my history of not posting citations, incorrectly, instead of attacking the argument.   This is obviously ad hom and irrelevant.

No, I'm not attacking your citation habits so much as your attack of Wikipedia's academic integrity when the academic integrity of the official FES wiki leaves much to be desired.

Indeed, I contributed nothing as it is an unfinished article with just an outline.  Unless of course you wanted citations on my outline? Where exactly does this have anything to do with this argument or me?

Furthermore, I'm not criticizing wikipedia, I'm critizing those that don't know how to use it properly.

granted the opinionated bit on Wikipedia isn't reliable, but that doesn't make it false. my point was that when we talk of Aether, we get into semantics now adays. that's because modern aether=/=old aether

Quote from: John Davis on June 24, 2010, 06:19:03 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 23, 2010, 11:01:37 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 02:40:37 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 23, 2010, 02:33:31 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 06:17:33 AM

And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.

Irrelevant.

It would be special pleading to take the FAQ over Wikipedia

WHo mentioned the faq?  I quoted a proper scientist as well as Einstein himself.  You quoted uncited garbage opinion.

Quote from: markjo on June 23, 2010, 07:41:57 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 06:43:56 PM

I don't point people towards our faq usually (unless a new user and in which case it is appropriate not to cite everything as the majority of it is first hand information and usually not meant as zomg proof) or towards our wiki and I didn't write any of the wiki.

Well, actually, you did contribute to the wiki.  OK, you started to, but don't seem to have gotten past the initial outline.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 06:43:56 PM

What you are doing is attacking my history of not posting citations, incorrectly, instead of attacking the argument.   This is obviously ad hom and irrelevant.

No, I'm not attacking your citation habits so much as your attack of Wikipedia's academic integrity when the academic integrity of the official FES wiki leaves much to be desired.

Indeed, I contributed nothing as it is an unfinished article with just an outline.  Unless of course you wanted citations on my outline? Where exactly does this have anything to do with this argument or me?

Furthermore, I'm not criticizing wikipedia, I'm critizing those that don't know how to use it properly.

granted the opinionated bit on Wikipedia isn't reliable, but that doesn't make it false. my point was that when we talk of Aether, we get into semantics now adays. that's because modern aether=/=old aether

Yeah, old air =/= modern air either.  old space =/= modern space either.  You could say that about virtually anything.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 24, 2010, 02:25:40 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 24, 2010, 06:19:03 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 23, 2010, 11:01:37 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 02:40:37 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 23, 2010, 02:33:31 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 06:17:33 AM

And I have to take this on your word and an uncited wikipedia article?

Well, the Flat Earth Wiki and the FAQ have very little of their content properly documented or cited.

Irrelevant.

It would be special pleading to take the FAQ over Wikipedia

WHo mentioned the faq?  I quoted a proper scientist as well as Einstein himself.  You quoted uncited garbage opinion.

Quote from: markjo on June 23, 2010, 07:41:57 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 06:43:56 PM

I don't point people towards our faq usually (unless a new user and in which case it is appropriate not to cite everything as the majority of it is first hand information and usually not meant as zomg proof) or towards our wiki and I didn't write any of the wiki.

Well, actually, you did contribute to the wiki.  OK, you started to, but don't seem to have gotten past the initial outline.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2010, 06:43:56 PM

What you are doing is attacking my history of not posting citations, incorrectly, instead of attacking the argument.   This is obviously ad hom and irrelevant.

No, I'm not attacking your citation habits so much as your attack of Wikipedia's academic integrity when the academic integrity of the official FES wiki leaves much to be desired.

Indeed, I contributed nothing as it is an unfinished article with just an outline.  Unless of course you wanted citations on my outline? Where exactly does this have anything to do with this argument or me?

Furthermore, I'm not criticizing wikipedia, I'm critizing those that don't know how to use it properly.

granted the opinionated bit on Wikipedia isn't reliable, but that doesn't make it false. my point was that when we talk of Aether, we get into semantics now adays. that's because modern aether=/=old aether

Yeah, old air =/= modern air either.  old space =/= modern space either.  You could say that about virtually anything.

No, because air and space were never only scientific concepts like aether. also the composition is what changed in those cases, not the view on their existence. no ones gonna stop using the term air, because it is a part of common speech unlike Aether

Like I said, if you plan to have some ridiculous semantic argument, don't expect for me to take you seriously.

Like I said, if you plan to have some ridiculous semantic argument, don't expect for me to take you seriously.

fair enough