[REDACTED]

  • 133 Replies
  • 14904 Views
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2010, 03:48:14 PM »
In applying the Scientific Method, you cannot theorize about things you know to be false.

Obviously I'm proof that this is not true.  I do it all the time.
No. Wrong. I doubt that you could meet the premise without a year of additional education since you think that accelerations are forces.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #31 on: July 25, 2010, 03:49:17 PM »
In applying the Scientific Method, you cannot theorize about things you know to be false.

Obviously I'm proof that this is not true.  I do it all the time.
No. Wrong.

Despite evidence to the contrary, you make quite an unsupported claim there.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2010, 03:51:35 PM by Roundy the Truthinessist »
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #32 on: July 25, 2010, 03:58:26 PM »
In applying the Scientific Method, you cannot theorize about things you know to be false.

Obviously I'm proof that this is not true.  I do it all the time.
No. Wrong.

Despite evidence to the contrary, you make quite an unsupported claim there.
I supported my claim in the post. Please do feel free to tell us that you have learned the Scientific Method and also understand Newton's Laws of Motion (Force does not equal acceleration.) and we'll consider your application of The Scientific Method a remote possibility. Until then, you've failed.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #33 on: July 25, 2010, 04:04:30 PM »
I supported my claim in the post. Please do feel free to tell us that you have learned the Scientific Method and also understand Newton's Laws of Motion (Force does not equal acceleration.) and we'll consider your application of The Scientific Method a remote possibility. Until then, you've failed.

Failed or not, I've done it!

I do understand the difference between force and acceleration, btw.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #34 on: July 25, 2010, 05:02:56 PM »
I supported my claim in the post. Please do feel free to tell us that you have learned the Scientific Method and also understand Newton's Laws of Motion (Force does not equal acceleration.) and we'll consider your application of The Scientific Method a remote possibility. Until then, you've failed.

Failed or not, I've done it!

I do understand the difference between force and acceleration, btw.
You have not, as it's impossible by definition of the Scientific Method. Study it and understand.

Then why did you screw up the difference in posting in the terminal velocity thread, by the way?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #35 on: July 25, 2010, 05:06:26 PM »
You have not, as it's impossible by definition of the Scientific Method.

Sure I have.  But you're entitled to your opinion.

Quote
Then why did you screw up the difference in posting in the terminal velocity thread, by the way?

I misspoke.  Oops!
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #36 on: July 25, 2010, 07:24:49 PM »
Theorizing about things they don't believe in is what makes DAs here so maddening to debate. They make an obviously ridiculous claim, then either disappear or say they don't have to when asked to present evidence for it. It is in this way they manage to derail most of the threads with legit points, so nothing can ever get accomplished.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #37 on: July 25, 2010, 07:28:41 PM »
You have not, as it's impossible by definition of the Scientific Method.

Sure I have. 
Quote
Then prove it. There's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #38 on: July 25, 2010, 08:55:28 PM »
My theories are all over the forums.  Conduct a search.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #39 on: July 25, 2010, 09:02:44 PM »
My theories are all over the forums.  Conduct a search.
What you claim to be theories do indeed litter the forums. Not one in support of FET, especially that forces are accelerations, employ the Scientific Method.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #40 on: July 25, 2010, 09:09:17 PM »
My theories are all over the forums.  Conduct a search.
What you claim to be theories do indeed litter the forums. Not one in support of FET, especially that forces are accelerations, employ the Scientific Method.

I don't think you understand the Scientific Method.  And the ad hominems regarding the force=acceleration blunder are getting a little embarrassing for you, as I have already admitted my mistake.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12249
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #41 on: July 25, 2010, 09:12:56 PM »
BUT YOU SAID SOMETHING ELSE AND YOU WERE WRONG
AND YOU WERE WRONG
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40311
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #42 on: July 25, 2010, 09:37:42 PM »
Looks like someone is getting a little bitter.
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.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12249
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #43 on: July 25, 2010, 10:14:47 PM »
BUT HE WAS WRONG
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #44 on: July 25, 2010, 10:23:36 PM »
My theories are all over the forums.  Conduct a search.
What you claim to be theories do indeed litter the forums. Not one in support of FET, especially that forces are accelerations, employ the Scientific Method.

I don't think you understand the Scientific Method.  And the ad hominems regarding the force=acceleration blunder are getting a little embarrassing for you, as I have already admitted my mistake.
It's not an ad hominem when you're arguing that you've accomplished feats that your postings indicate that you're incapable of. You brought your accomplishments into play with your unsupported boast. Do tell us how you can use the Scientific Method starting from something that is 1) not true, such as FET, 2) not falsifiable, such as FET, or 3) both, such as FET.

While we're all glad that you admitted your "force=acceleration" mistake, you did not do so in the thread where you made the mistake. We though find your excuse that you simply misspoke suspect. You did not offer a correction. Furthermore, we've seen you make other mistakes that indicate that you don't understand science well, such as arguing that the EP applies over more than a point. You still haven't admitted to the "EP applies to two separate points" mistake.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #45 on: July 26, 2010, 03:31:47 PM »
Looks like someone is getting a little bitter.

Nah, he's been like that ever since he was Gulliver.

It's not an ad hominem when you're arguing that you've accomplished feats that your postings indicate that you're incapable of.

Still, they're a little embarrassing.  I guess we can discount your credentials too for saying that the moon only shines at night?  Obviously it means that everything you say must be wrong.

Also, don't you think that it's a little hypocritical for you to criticize someone for not admitting to his mistakes?
« Last Edit: July 26, 2010, 03:39:59 PM by Roundy the Truthinessist »
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #46 on: July 26, 2010, 04:25:51 PM »
I fail to see how theorizing about something and not believing in something are mutually exclusive.

Then you also fail at life.

I don't see how thinking about how the world could be is impossible if you don't believe it is actually that way. I could theorize how waterbending would scientifically work, even if I know it isn't real.

Sounds like you've just theorised yourself into a dead end.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40311
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #47 on: July 26, 2010, 07:31:35 PM »
Looks like someone is getting a little bitter.

Nah, he's been like that ever since he was Gulliver.

Seems like Gulliver has more lives than The Doctor.
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.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #48 on: July 27, 2010, 02:16:39 AM »
... If people never theorized about new ideas, even in times when they thought it was wrong, then we would never have any new ideas.

True but irrelevant. You still have to believe something in order to theorise about it.

"Spin more than one hypothesis.  If there's something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained.  Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives.  What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among 'multiple working hypotheses,' has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you simply run with the idea that caught your fancy."  -Carl Sagan The Demon Haunted World

Many round Earth proponents think like this.  They have an idea and do not question it under any circumstance.  They do not think of other explanations.  They ignore evidence to the contrary and stick to their notions.  Interestingly, here is the footnote to this exurb...

"This is a problem that effects jury trials.  Retrospective studies show that some jurors make up their minds very early -- perhaps during the opening arguments -- and then retain the evidence that seems to support their initial impressions and reject the contrary evidence.  The method of alternative working hypotheses is not running in their heads."

Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #49 on: July 27, 2010, 03:26:48 AM »
... If people never theorized about new ideas, even in times when they thought it was wrong, then we would never have any new ideas.

True but irrelevant. You still have to believe something in order to theorise about it.

"Spin more than one hypothesis.  If there's something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained.  Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives.  What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among 'multiple working hypotheses,' has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you simply run with the idea that caught your fancy."  -Carl Sagan The Demon Haunted World

Many round Earth proponents think like this.  They have an idea and do not question it under any circumstance.  They do not think of other explanations.  They ignore evidence to the contrary and stick to their notions.  Interestingly, here is the footnote to this exurb...

"This is a problem that effects jury trials.  Retrospective studies show that some jurors make up their minds very early -- perhaps during the opening arguments -- and then retain the evidence that seems to support their initial impressions and reject the contrary evidence.  The method of alternative working hypotheses is not running in their heads."
You should consider your own advice. FEers seem to forget a few points here all too often. A hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. Any FET hypothesis that includes the "conspiracy" is not a hypothesis.

Before testing, there's a research step. All too often, FEers don't do the research to understand what others have done.

Then experimental design requires the construction of tests that test each working hypothesis. So let's say you hypothesize that what you experience as gravity is actually the UA. What tests would you run to determine if UA is the cause? How about the Cavendish result? How about this guy's ideas: http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/. And this: http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2005/2005-07-01/feature1/index.html.

It sure seems to me that there's plenty of ways to move ahead with testing FET.

The recent "Where is the accurate FE map?" thread points to another test. If FE is right and the NP is the center of the map, then certain distances should vary between FE and RE. Why not measure them and see which is correct?

The hypothesis that a telescope restores the 'sunken hull' effect should be easy enough to test with nothing more than a borrowed pair of binoculars. Why is it FEers either lie about the results or can't afford to perform the experiment? If you follow Sagan's advice, you'd be eager. Heck, if you can't get to the seashore, then just have someone take a photograph of the event for you. Then if a magnifying glass restores the hull in the picture for you then this wild idea is correct. If not, well, you know.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #50 on: July 27, 2010, 05:32:25 AM »
Many round Earth proponents think like this.  They have an idea and do not question it under any circumstance.

That would be because they believe in the subject they are theorising upon.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40311
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #51 on: July 27, 2010, 06:24:38 AM »
Many round Earth proponents think like this.  They have an idea and do not question it under any circumstance.  They do not think of other explanations.  They ignore evidence to the contrary and stick to their notions. 

Which evidence to the contrary are you referring to?
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.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #52 on: July 27, 2010, 11:36:32 AM »
Many round Earth proponents think like this.  They have an idea and do not question it under any circumstance.  They do not think of other explanations.  They ignore evidence to the contrary and stick to their notions. 
You describe exactly FE side. You don't question under any circumstance flat earth, ignore all evidence which shows otherwise and try forcefully fit all explanations to FE model. And why people who were taught that the eart is round find it hard to believe otherwise... because there isn't any evidence to the contrary. Not one FE believer hasn't shown ever any evidence for FE besides Rowbotham book and notion that the piece of ground beside you is flat.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #53 on: July 27, 2010, 12:38:07 PM »
You should consider your own advice. FEers seem to forget a few points here all too often. A hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. Any FET hypothesis that includes the "conspiracy" is not a hypothesis.

What?  That quote is about questioning the normal ideas.  Clearly I am doing that.  Are you trying to be creative by turning my argument around?  If so, you've failed miserably.

Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #54 on: July 27, 2010, 04:31:46 PM »
You should consider your own advice. FEers seem to forget a few points here all too often. A hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. Any FET hypothesis that includes the "conspiracy" is not a hypothesis.

What?  That quote is about questioning the normal ideas.  Clearly I am doing that.  Are you trying to be creative by turning my argument around?  If so, you've failed miserably.
Odd, I didn't see the word "normal" anywhere in the quote or your comments on it. Why would there be two standards anyway, one for normal ideas, and another for FET? That seems rather a miserable excuse to me, but then again maybe you have to make excuses for your miserable 'theory'.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #55 on: July 28, 2010, 12:35:19 PM »
That quote is about questioning the normal ideas.  Clearly I am doing that. 
What normal idea are you questioning? Idea that the earth is round? No, you don't question it. You just drop it and put up instead idea which you can't support in any way.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #56 on: July 29, 2010, 12:19:38 AM »
You should consider your own advice. FEers seem to forget a few points here all too often. A hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. Any FET hypothesis that includes the "conspiracy" is not a hypothesis.

What?  That quote is about questioning the normal ideas.  Clearly I am doing that.  Are you trying to be creative by turning my argument around?  If so, you've failed miserably.
Odd, I didn't see the word "normal" anywhere in the quote or your comments on it. Why would there be two standards anyway, one for normal ideas, and another for FET? That seems rather a miserable excuse to me, but then again maybe you have to make excuses for your miserable 'theory'.

You strike me as a person who would benefit immensely from being acquainted with the definition of the word "synonym", and a concept known as paraphrasing.  Better yet, read the book from which I am quoting.  It may help you beyond belief.

Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #57 on: July 29, 2010, 12:49:28 AM »
You should consider your own advice. FEers seem to forget a few points here all too often. A hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. Any FET hypothesis that includes the "conspiracy" is not a hypothesis.

What?  That quote is about questioning the normal ideas.  Clearly I am doing that.  Are you trying to be creative by turning my argument around?  If so, you've failed miserably.
Odd, I didn't see the word "normal" anywhere in the quote or your comments on it. Why would there be two standards anyway, one for normal ideas, and another for FET? That seems rather a miserable excuse to me, but then again maybe you have to make excuses for your miserable 'theory'.

You strike me as a person who would benefit immensely from being acquainted with the definition of the word "synonym", and a concept known as paraphrasing.  Better yet, read the book from which I am quoting.  It may help you beyond belief.
How do you know that I haven't already read all of Sagan's works? And, again, why doesn't Sagan's sage advice apply to your efforts?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #58 on: July 29, 2010, 01:22:43 AM »
You should consider your own advice. FEers seem to forget a few points here all too often. A hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. Any FET hypothesis that includes the "conspiracy" is not a hypothesis.

What?  That quote is about questioning the normal ideas.  Clearly I am doing that.  Are you trying to be creative by turning my argument around?  If so, you've failed miserably.
Odd, I didn't see the word "normal" anywhere in the quote or your comments on it. Why would there be two standards anyway, one for normal ideas, and another for FET? That seems rather a miserable excuse to me, but then again maybe you have to make excuses for your miserable 'theory'.

You strike me as a person who would benefit immensely from being acquainted with the definition of the word "synonym", and a concept known as paraphrasing.  Better yet, read the book from which I am quoting.  It may help you beyond belief.
How do you know that I haven't already read all of Sagan's works? And, again, why doesn't Sagan's sage advice apply to your efforts?

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough when I first answered this question.  I will try to use plain English and write clearly this time -- as I so hate to do.  That quote is about coming up with different ideas and testing each one of them.  We are doing that here at the Flat Earth Society.  I am unaware of the internal workings of the mind of ClockTower, but here, as with all areas of science, it takes years -- if not decades -- to thoroughly test, retest, and strain a theory through the sieve of truth before dismissing it as false.  As that quote directly and clearly states that alternative hypotheses must be "spun" and tested, and, as we are doing that here, that is how we are "spinning" new ideas and testing them... I'm not sure how much more clear I can be there.  That's how we are following Carl Sagan's direction.

Does that make sense now?  We are following Sagan's advice by doing exactly what his advise states.  I do not know how I can word that more clearly and I pray that you do not need it explained a third time.

Re: Why RE will never win here
« Reply #59 on: July 29, 2010, 02:13:54 AM »
You should consider your own advice. FEers seem to forget a few points here all too often. A hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. Any FET hypothesis that includes the "conspiracy" is not a hypothesis.

What?  That quote is about questioning the normal ideas.  Clearly I am doing that.  Are you trying to be creative by turning my argument around?  If so, you've failed miserably.
Odd, I didn't see the word "normal" anywhere in the quote or your comments on it. Why would there be two standards anyway, one for normal ideas, and another for FET? That seems rather a miserable excuse to me, but then again maybe you have to make excuses for your miserable 'theory'.

You strike me as a person who would benefit immensely from being acquainted with the definition of the word "synonym", and a concept known as paraphrasing.  Better yet, read the book from which I am quoting.  It may help you beyond belief.
How do you know that I haven't already read all of Sagan's works? And, again, why doesn't Sagan's sage advice apply to your efforts?

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough when I first answered this question.  I will try to use plain English and write clearly this time -- as I so hate to do.  That quote is about coming up with different ideas and testing each one of them.  We are doing that here at the Flat Earth Society.  I am unaware of the internal workings of the mind of ClockTower, but here, as with all areas of science, it takes years -- if not decades -- to thoroughly test, retest, and strain a theory through the sieve of truth before dismissing it as false.  As that quote directly and clearly states that alternative hypotheses must be "spun" and tested, and, as we are doing that here, that is how we are "spinning" new ideas and testing them... I'm not sure how much more clear I can be there.  That's how we are following Carl Sagan's direction.

Does that make sense now?  We are following Sagan's advice by doing exactly what his advise states.  I do not know how I can word that more clearly and I pray that you do not need it explained a third time.
Do list for us all these tests that you're conducting. Oh, and we'd love to see and review the experimental design of each. Should there be a whole forum dedicated to this huge effort? Or could it be that no one on the FE side of the argument ever bothers to do a proper experiment?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards