Can you guys xplain something?

How do you know that there is a conspiracy, if it's a conspiracy?

How do you know that there is a conspiracy, if it's a conspiracy?

My Signature fits well into that argument

How do you know that there is a conspiracy, if it's a conspiracy?

The Earth is flat. We know this. Therefore if the Earth is flat and NASA has claimed send ships into space then there is a conspiracy.

In the finite Earth model it is impossible to send ships into space so therefore NASA hasn't actually sent stuff up there.

In the infinite Earth model the Earth wouldn't appear spherical therefore NASA hasn't actually sent stuff up there and taken pictures of the Earth



NASA is lying about what it does with it's money, therefore there is a conspiracy.

Quote from: Keldarion Typrax on September 06, 2010, 10:39:13 PM

How do you know that there is a conspiracy, if it's a conspiracy?

The Earth is flat. We know this. Therefore if the Earth is flat and NASA has claimed send ships into space then there is a conspiracy.

In the finite Earth model it is impossible to send ships into space so therefore NASA hasn't actually sent stuff up there.

In the infinite Earth model the Earth wouldn't appear spherical therefore NASA hasn't actually sent stuff up there and taken pictures of the Earth



NASA is lying about what it does with it's money, therefore there is a conspiracy.

1) EG is lying. He does not believe that the Earth is flat.
2) He assumes the conclusion (The Earth is flat.), to obtain the required premise (A conspiracy exists that forges and hides the truth.). As you know that evidence for a round Earth is overwhelming without the premise of a consipracy.

By the way, it's "its", not "it's".

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on September 06, 2010, 11:24:27 PM

The Earth is flat. We know this. Therefore if the Earth is flat and NASA has claimed send ships into space then there is a conspiracy.

In the finite Earth model it is impossible to send ships into space so therefore NASA hasn't actually sent stuff up there.

In the infinite Earth model the Earth wouldn't appear spherical therefore NASA hasn't actually sent stuff up there and taken pictures of the Earth



NASA is lying about what it does with it's money, therefore there is a conspiracy.

1) EG is lying. He does not believe that the Earth is flat.
2) He assumes the conclusion (The Earth is flat.), to obtain the required premise (A conspiracy exists that forges and hides the truth.). As you know that evidence for a round Earth is overwhelming without the premise of a consipracy.

By the way it is "conspiracy" not "consipracy".

1) When have I ever stated I do not believe in FE? 
2) Incorrect. I assume the premise (The Earth is Flat) which means that the conclusion must exist. (Conspiracy)

The argument is Modus Ponus

If the Earth is flat, then that means there is a conspiracy.
The Earth is flat.   
There is a conspiracy.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 06, 2010, 11:30:28 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on September 06, 2010, 11:24:27 PM

The Earth is flat. We know this. Therefore if the Earth is flat and NASA has claimed send ships into space then there is a conspiracy.

In the finite Earth model it is impossible to send ships into space so therefore NASA hasn't actually sent stuff up there.

In the infinite Earth model the Earth wouldn't appear spherical therefore NASA hasn't actually sent stuff up there and taken pictures of the Earth



NASA is lying about what it does with it's money, therefore there is a conspiracy.

1) EG is lying. He does not believe that the Earth is flat.
2) He assumes the conclusion (The Earth is flat.), to obtain the required premise (A conspiracy exists that forges and hides the truth.). As you know that evidence for a round Earth is overwhelming without the premise of a consipracy.

By the way it is "conspiracy" not "consipracy".

1) When have I ever stated I do not believe in FE? 
2) Incorrect. I assume the premise (The Earth is Flat) which means that the conclusion must exist. (Conspiracy)

The argument is Modus Ponus

If the Earth is flat, then that means there is a conspiracy.
The Earth is flat.   
There is a conspiracy.

Assumption is the key to the failure in the premise of your belief system. AKA faith based. Conspiracy is just a control tool, and a pleading tool for credibility. If you have to use this kind of argument to support your assumptions, you are thus phishing for ignorance much in the same way that the Banana Man does.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 06, 2010, 11:30:28 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on September 06, 2010, 11:24:27 PM

The Earth is flat. We know this. Therefore if the Earth is flat and NASA has claimed send ships into space then there is a conspiracy.

In the finite Earth model it is impossible to send ships into space so therefore NASA hasn't actually sent stuff up there.

In the infinite Earth model the Earth wouldn't appear spherical therefore NASA hasn't actually sent stuff up there and taken pictures of the Earth



NASA is lying about what it does with it's money, therefore there is a conspiracy.

1) EG is lying. He does not believe that the Earth is flat.
2) He assumes the conclusion (The Earth is flat.), to obtain the required premise (A conspiracy exists that forges and hides the truth.). As you know that evidence for a round Earth is overwhelming without the premise of a consipracy.

By the way it is "conspiracy" not "consipracy".

1) When have I ever stated I do not believe in FE? 
2) Incorrect. I assume the premise (The Earth is Flat) which means that the conclusion must exist. (Conspiracy)

The argument is Modus Ponus

If the Earth is flat, then that means there is a conspiracy.
The Earth is flat.   
There is a conspiracy.

And once you assume something that is false, such as the Earth is flat, you can conclude anything. Anyone you who assumes their premise to prove their conclusion is wrong. Do learn to reason.

Anyone you assumes their premise to prove their conclusion is wrong.

This makes no sense.

Also, my modus ponus argument was completely valid.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 07, 2010, 12:04:17 AM

Anyone youwho assumes their premise to prove their conclusion is wrong.

This makes no sense.

Also, my modus ponus argument was completely valid.

Fixed for you.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 07, 2010, 12:04:17 AM

Anyone you assumes their premise to prove their conclusion is wrong.

This makes no sense.

Good thing that's not what he said huh?

Assumption is the mother of all Fuck-ups. Assumptions are for those who can't apply critical thinking skills to establish anything they are assuming to be true is in fact true. This usually follows the unwillingness to address anything that show's their assumptions to be untrue. It's what I call pleading religious dogma.

What does "xplain" mean?

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on September 07, 2010, 12:15:53 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on September 07, 2010, 12:04:17 AM

Anyone youwho assumes their premise to prove their conclusion is wrong.

This makes no sense.

Also, my modus ponus argument was completely valid.

Fixed for you.

Thank you. I see that you do not disagree my argument was valid. Good.


I would also like to point out that just because you assume your premise, does not necessarily mean you are wrong.

When I decided to take a shower, I do so because I assume that bad hygiene is bad for my health. (Along with many other reasons)

Does that mean that I am wrong about bad hygiene being bad for my health?

Quote from: ClockTower on September 07, 2010, 12:17:05 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on September 07, 2010, 12:15:53 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on September 07, 2010, 12:04:17 AM

Anyone youwho assumes their premise to prove their conclusion is wrong.

This makes no sense.

Also, my modus ponus argument was completely valid.

Fixed for you.

Thank you. I see that you do not disagree my argument was valid. Good.


I would also like to point out that just because you assume your premise, does not necessarily mean you are wrong.

When I decided to take a shower, I do so because I assume that bad hygiene is bad for my health. (Along with many other reasons)

Does that mean that I am wrong about bad hygiene being bad for my health?

You're wrong, but I guess we've come to expect that. I do disagree with your argument. I never said that everyone who assumes their premise is wrong, did I? Do learn to read.

EG the problem comes when you use the conclusion to justify the assumption.
You can never dismiss evidence contrary to Flat Earth by using a conspiracy without first proving that the conspiracy exists without using an assumption stating that your view is correct.

It would be like me saying that I know the Earth is a sphere so you must be crazy. I have to prove my assumption first before my argument has value.

They say there's a conspiracy, without evidences, because is the only thing that fits 
It's like religion, they have a conclusion, and look for things to support it (i'd say "facts" but i haven't seen none so far).

They say there's a conspiracy, without evidences, because is the only thing that fits  
It's like religion, they have a conclusion, and look for things to support it (i'd say "facts" but i haven't seen none so far).

Yep. FET is more like "contradict round earth explanations". There is nothing in FET that produces something impossible on a spherical earth.

What does "xplain" mean?

Explain??

Quote from: Parsifal on September 07, 2010, 12:26:54 AM

What does "xplain" mean?

Explain??

Please don't feed the trolls. He knew what it meant. This is the same guy who proposes that light is accelerated by a new force so it doesn't go in a straight line, when convenient for FET.

Quote from: Keldarion Typrax on September 06, 2010, 10:39:13 PM

How do you know that there is a conspiracy, if it's a conspiracy?

The Earth is flat. We know this by attributing anything that might prove otherwise to the conspiracy. The conspiracy has infinite resources.

Fixed.

In the finite Earth model it is impossible to send ships into space so therefore NASA hasn't actually sent stuff up there.

Incorrect.

In the infinite Earth model the Earth wouldn't appear spherical therefore NASA hasn't actually sent stuff up there and taken pictures of the Earth

Incorrect.

NASA is lying about what it does with it's money, therefore there is a conspiracy.

Incorrect.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on September 07, 2010, 12:33:18 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on September 07, 2010, 12:17:05 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on September 07, 2010, 12:15:53 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on September 07, 2010, 12:04:17 AM

Anyone youwho assumes their premise to prove their conclusion is wrong.

This makes no sense.

Also, my modus ponus argument was completely valid.

Fixed for you.

Thank you. I see that you do not disagree my argument was valid. Good.


I would also like to point out that just because you assume your premise, does not necessarily mean you are wrong.

When I decided to take a shower, I do so because I assume that bad hygiene is bad for my health. (Along with many other reasons)

Does that mean that I am wrong about bad hygiene being bad for my health?

You're wrong, but I guess we've come to expect that. I do disagree with your argument.

You disagree? Do point out how the argument was invalid.

Anyone who assumes their premise to prove their conclusion is wrong.

Anyone who assumes their premise to prove their conclusion is wrong.

Yep, and it's rather funny watching them plead for credibility. This is like watching the banana man videos, or some guy telling people that it's God pushing them down to explain gravity. If I am not mistaken, this websites seems like an attempt to teach ignorance as if it was a war on science. You can almost call this a creationist website to where they attempt to tell you to believe them without them actually proving what they say is even true or relevant. It falls into the typical mechanics of brainwashing, and the conspiracy is interestingly used as a fear tool. FE is definitely religious in nature (as in it behaves like a religion).

Anyone who assumes their premise to prove their conclusion is wrong.

Like Einstein, you mean?

Quote from: ClockTower on September 07, 2010, 08:43:18 AM

Anyone who assumes their premise to prove their conclusion is wrong.

Yep, and it's rather funny watching them plead for credibility. This is like watching the banana man videos, or some guy telling people that it's God pushing them down to explain gravity. If I am not mistaken, this websites seems like an attempt to teach ignorance as if it was a war on science. You can almost call this a creationist website to where they attempt to tell you to believe them without them actually proving what they say is even true or relevant. It falls into the typical mechanics of brainwashing, and the conspiracy is interestingly used as a fear tool. FE is definitely religious in nature (as in it behaves like a religion).

Of course, that quote contains outrageous claims. 

Of course, that quote contains outrageous claims. 

What would you consider outrageous? I need not go any further than the FAQ, EAT, Earthquakes, FE Map, or time, speed, and distance calculations to comprehend that FE is all faith based pseudoscience. When people like this can learn their shapes and why navigation would fail utterly by using spherical coordinates over a FE, they might actually figure out the Earth isn't flat. This includes manual plotting of ones course by using the Sun, stars, and the Moon according to the RE coordinate system. You might also want to understand what a non-planner triangle is, or what a Green flash is. You might also want to figure out how to track the orbits of the moon and sun to figure out the hilariousness of the FE model.

And Parsifal,

Einstein theories have far more credibility than yours do. And I don't think I recall him ever assuming himself to be correct if something proves him incorrect. Your argument is not how the scientific community works. You apparently believe you can cast magic pseudoscience and then assert it as fact without substantiating it, demonstrating it, or even remotely showing any real data in regards to it. I am not interested in faith based pseudoscience.

 

Einstein theories have far more credibility than yours do.

Irrelevant.

And I don't think I recall him ever assuming himself to be correct if something proves him incorrect.

Irrelevant.

Your argument is not how the scientific community works.

Irrelevant.

You apparently believe you can cast magic pseudoscience and then assert it as fact without substantiating it, demonstrating it, or even remotely showing any real data in regards to it.

Irrelevant.

I am not interested in faith based pseudoscience.

Irrelevant.

Quote from: TheJackel on September 07, 2010, 01:17:09 PM

Einstein theories have far more credibility than yours do.

Irrelevant.

Quote from: TheJackel on September 07, 2010, 01:17:09 PM

And I don't think I recall him ever assuming himself to be correct if something proves him incorrect.

Irrelevant.

Quote from: TheJackel on September 07, 2010, 01:17:09 PM

Your argument is not how the scientific community works.

Irrelevant.

Quote from: TheJackel on September 07, 2010, 01:17:09 PM

You apparently believe you can cast magic pseudoscience and then assert it as fact without substantiating it, demonstrating it, or even remotely showing any real data in regards to it.

Irrelevant.

Quote from: TheJackel on September 07, 2010, 01:17:09 PM

I am not interested in faith based pseudoscience.

Irrelevant.

Fail.. It's entirely relevant. You need to work on your psychological addiction to denial.  So now you think you can cast magic irrelevance LMAO! All I see here Parsifal is pleading for credibility.

Fail.. It's entirely relevant. You need to work on your psychological addiction to denial. 

Can you please explain how the validity of my ideas, or whether Einstein's postulates were ever proven incorrect, is relevant to the validity of CockTugger's statement that "Anyone who assumes their premise to prove their conclusion is wrong."?

Quote from: TheJackel on September 07, 2010, 02:18:32 PM

Fail.. It's entirely relevant. You need to work on your psychological addiction to denial. 

Can you please explain how the validity of my ideas, or whether Einstein's postulates were ever proven incorrect, is relevant to the validity of CockTugger's statement that "Anyone who assumes their premise to prove their conclusion is wrong."?

Assumptions are typically as wrong as statistics are wrong. Assuming a premise to be true without actually validating such a premise to be true is likely to be wrong. Arguing a negative does not win you credibility either Parsifal. Yes, an assumption can sometimes pan out to be true giving the evidence to back it up pans out to support it. However you are using assumptions in EAT as an attempt to prove EAT vs actually demonstrating, experimenting, providing data, or actually substantiating it. When an FE believer on this site can actually substantiate their assumptions as facts, I will kindly consider them up for peer review.

When I read about E=MC2 I can understand the 4 stages of matter. Hence, there is a reason why we have Nuclear Reactors powering our Electrical Grids.