FET is a bad theory--so inconsistent

Quote from: markjo on November 11, 2010, 03:28:19 PM

Discussing the hypocrisy of RE'ers is also irrelevant and off topic.  Again, this thread is about the inconsistency of FET, not RET.  FET is supposed to be the better theory, so therefore it should be more consistent than RET.  This does not appear to be the case.

Lady Blount's trials on the Old Bedford Canal show that Flat Earth Theory is more consistent with reality than Round Earth Theory.

That's one experiment with historically flawed data.  Round Earth has countless tests with perfect data.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2010, 05:29:44 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 11, 2010, 03:28:19 PM

Discussing the hypocrisy of RE'ers is also irrelevant and off topic.  Again, this thread is about the inconsistency of FET, not RET.  FET is supposed to be the better theory, so therefore it should be more consistent than RET.  This does not appear to be the case.

Lady Blount's trials on the Old Bedford Canal show that Flat Earth Theory is more consistent with reality than Round Earth Theory.

That's one experiment with historically flawed data.  Round Earth has countless tests with perfect data.

Link to perfect data please?

Quote

Please explain with your hundreds of peer reviews from all over the globe, yes "globe", and explain in detail why RET is inconsistent.

RET cannot explain the results of the bedford canal experiments.
Really Tom? Other people have done it and found curvature, and others have found it inconclusive. So I guess NO ONE can explain it.
RET cannot tell me the mechanism for gravity.
FET has gravity on other planets in it's model and you cannot explain the mechanism for UA. Sure gravity is still not fully explained, but it has a lot on UA.
RET cannot demonstrate the existence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy.
Well, if RET cannot demonstrate the existence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy, and I've read that UA is propelled by one of those, then UA is out isn't it?
RET cannot tell me why the galaxies to spin as if they were solid disks.
Not all do, ours does because of a massive black hole in the center.
RET cannot tell me whether the earth is hollow or not. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is hollow.
Saying some RE'ers believe the Earth is hollow is unfair. One group of crazies think the Earth is hollow. RET says the Earth is solid.
RET cannot decide whether the earth is physically growing or not. Some REers believe that the earth is physically growing.
Is it a new theory? Just because someone makes a theory and some others accept it doesn't mean we're divided.
RET cannot tell me how old the earth is. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is 6000 years old. Some believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Why cant RE'ers decide?
Hardcore Christians believe the Earth is 6000 years old. The rest of us sane people believe it's 4.5 billion.
RET cannot decide whether the earth is geocentric or heliocentric. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is geocentric.
Once again, the standard accepted model is heliocentric. I don't know of many people who believe the Earth is round and at the center.
These are inconsistencies in the RET model in the same way that you guys pointing out minority FET beliefs (ie. first post of this thread) is an inconsistency in FET.

Tom, please try harder next time. This post was full of so much fail you should be ashamed.

Ok, I'm pretty uninformed on this debate so excuse me if my observation is stupid but...Haven't we been to space and directly observed the fact that the Earth is round? Is there seriously any concrete evidence from FET that can convince anyone otherwise? I'm seriously confused...

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 14, 2010, 07:28:50 PM

Quote

Please explain with your hundreds of peer reviews from all over the globe, yes "globe", and explain in detail why RET is inconsistent.

RET cannot explain the results of the bedford canal experiments.
Really Tom? Other people have done it and found curvature, and others have found it inconclusive. So I guess NO ONE can explain it.
RET cannot tell me the mechanism for gravity.
FET has gravity on other planets in it's model and you cannot explain the mechanism for UA. Sure gravity is still not fully explained, but it has a lot on UA.
RET cannot demonstrate the existence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy.
Well, if RET cannot demonstrate the existence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy, and I've read that UA is propelled by one of those, then UA is out isn't it?
RET cannot tell me why the galaxies to spin as if they were solid disks.
Not all do, ours does because of a massive black hole in the center.
RET cannot tell me whether the earth is hollow or not. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is hollow.
Saying some RE'ers believe the Earth is hollow is unfair. One group of crazies think the Earth is hollow. RET says the Earth is solid.
RET cannot decide whether the earth is physically growing or not. Some REers believe that the earth is physically growing.
Is it a new theory? Just because someone makes a theory and some others accept it doesn't mean we're divided.
RET cannot tell me how old the earth is. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is 6000 years old. Some believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Why cant RE'ers decide?
Hardcore Christians believe the Earth is 6000 years old. The rest of us sane people believe it's 4.5 billion.
RET cannot decide whether the earth is geocentric or heliocentric. Some RE'ers believe that the earth is geocentric.
Once again, the standard accepted model is heliocentric. I don't know of many people who believe the Earth is round and at the center.
These are inconsistencies in the RET model in the same way that you guys pointing out minority FET beliefs (ie. first post of this thread) is an inconsistency in FET.

Tom, please try harder next time. This post was full of so much fail you should be ashamed.

That there are fringe RE theories does not change the fact that there is an overwhelming consensus among the scientific community about the general size, shape and composition of the earth.  Even with limited understanding of the universe and fundamental forces, RET has various models that can make a wide variety of predictions to a high degree of precision and accuracy.  From the "theories" discussed on this "official FES debate forum" by the preeminent "FET researchers", it is obvious that FET is so fractured that there is no consensus on much of anything beyond saying that the earth is flat and someone is trying to cover up that fact.  When FE'ers can come up with a plausible theory than can explain why observers on the equator can observe 12 hours of daylight, 365 days a year while the polar regions alternate between perpetual night and midnight sun, then maybe you can jump up and down about RET's inconsistencies without embarrassing yourself.

Minority beliefs of Round Earthers are inconsistencies to Round Earth Theory in the same way that you guys claim that minority FE beliefs are inconsistencies in FET.

Minority beliefs of Round Earthers are inconsistencies to Round Earth Theory in the same way that you guys claim that minority FE beliefs are inconsistencies in FET.

I don't think the term "minority" really applies when each believer has their own model. And yet again, we are discussing the inconsistencies with FET, not those with RET. I'll try one more time to get this through your head, if you wish to discuss inconsistencies with RET, please make a separate thread.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2010, 11:59:55 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 11, 2010, 11:48:12 AM

REers correctly argue that FET is inconsistent and that makes it a bad theory.

So in RET is gravity caused by subatomic puller particles, or bendy space?

Tom, don't be a dick, FET says gravity is caused by INIFINITE ACCELERATION!!!

FUCKING INFINITE ACCELERATION!!!

they never said infinite acceleration, they only mentioned that it has been accelrating till today.  if i put you in a car when you were born, and drove and kept accelerating, you would call that "infinite acceleration" but it isnt, only starts and stops when it does.
d
i dont think any FEer ever said the acceleration never ends

i may be wrong tho

but i still dont see how we are talking abvout FE minorities.  i just see different theories come and go

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2010, 10:14:36 PM

Minority beliefs of Round Earthers are inconsistencies to Round Earth Theory in the same way that you guys claim that minority FE beliefs are inconsistencies in FET.

I don't think the term "minority" really applies when each believer has their own model. And yet again, we are discussing the inconsistencies with FET, not those with RET. I'll try one more time to get this through your head, if you wish to discuss inconsistencies with RET, please make a separate thread.

The Minority beliefs in RET are not argued usually argued here.

Minority beliefs of Round Earthers are inconsistencies to Round Earth Theory in the same way that you guys claim that minority FE beliefs are inconsistencies in FET.

No, hardcore Christian beliefs do not count in the beliefs of RE'ers. They are not science! When there are six to eight real Flat Earth believes and four have different models, I think that's a higher percentage than the Round Earthers who have different beliefs.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2010, 10:14:36 PM

Minority beliefs of Round Earthers are inconsistencies to Round Earth Theory in the same way that you guys claim that minority FE beliefs are inconsistencies in FET.

No, hardcore Christian beliefs do not count in the beliefs of RE'ers. They are not science! When there are six to eight real Flat Earth believes and four have different models, I think that's a higher percentage than the Round Earthers who have different beliefs.

Also Tom, are you going to provide counter arguments for what I posted, or run with you tail between your legs like usual?

Minority beliefs of Round Earthers are inconsistencies to Round Earth Theory in the same way that you guys claim that minority FE beliefs are inconsistencies in FET.

Tom, no RE'er on this site debates RET from a hollow earth or other fringe RET perspective, therefore those fringe theories are irrelevant.  Many FE'ers on this site debate FET using a variety of different models.  The RET scientific community has reached an overwhelming consensus with a model of the earth that has a great deal of predictive power.  FET has not.  Even fringe RE theories like hollow earth and geocentric models have far better predictive powers than FE does and no amount of whining will change that. 

No, hardcore Christian beliefs do not count in the beliefs of RE'ers. They are not science!

Well, then with all of RET's magical gravities, dark matters, and dark energies, those Christian fundamentalist beliefs should fit right in, shouldn't they?

Tom, no RE'er on this site debates RET from a hollow earth or other fringe RET perspective, therefore those fringe theories are irrelevant.

Why do they have to post here for it to be a minority RE belief which is inconsistent with the rest of RET?  

Quote from: sillyrob on November 19, 2010, 06:18:38 AM

No, hardcore Christian beliefs do not count in the beliefs of RE'ers. They are not science!

Well, then with all of RET's magical gravities, dark matters, and dark energies, those Christian fundamentalist beliefs should fit right in, shouldn't they?

No, gravity is consistent in what we believe. The Earth is larger therefore its gravitational pull is greater. The moon's mass is much smaller, therefore astronauts experience less gravitational pull and can jumper higher and hit golf balls further on the moon. Beyond that, the Sun has a greater mass and gravitational pull than all those, and that is why its affects can be felt up to 1 light year away from it.

Quote from: markjo on November 19, 2010, 04:37:18 PM

Tom, no RE'er on this site debates RET from a hollow earth or other fringe RET perspective, therefore those fringe theories are irrelevant.

Why do they have to post here for it to be a minority RE belief which is inconsistent with the rest of RET? 

Fringe RE beliefs such as hollow earth are not a part of the the RET consensus.  I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.  Now can we get back on topic and discuss what FE'ers are doing to resolve FET's inconsistencies?  Please?

No, gravity is consistent in what we believe.

No it isn't. You have two contradicting theories for gravity. One supposes that gravity occurs via sub-atomic puller particles called "Gravitons" and the other supposes the ridiculous notion that the fabric of space bends.

Which is it? If RET is so overwhelmingly successful, why can't it even tell us what causes gravity?

Fringe RE beliefs such as hollow earth are not a part of the the RET consensus.

So what makes you think that things like a flat moon and sun are part of the FET consensus?

I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.  Now can we get back on topic and discuss what FE'ers are doing to resolve FET's inconsistencies?  Please?

Well, what are RE'ers doing to resolve the inconsistencies between RET theories? Is the earth 6000 years old or 4.5 billion years old? Why can't you guys manage to get your story straight?

RET is obviously inconsistent since some people disagree about aspects of the model.

Quote from: sillyrob on November 19, 2010, 06:00:09 PM

No, gravity is consistent in what we believe.

No it isn't. You have two contradicting theories for gravity. One supposes that gravity occurs via sub-atomic puller particles called "Gravitons" and the other supposes the ridiculous notion that the fabric of space bends.

Which is it? If RET is so overwhelmingly successful, why can't it even tell us what causes gravity?

Please show us how the two theories for gravity contradict each other.

How is not being able to provide the cause of gravity an inconsistency?

Well, what are RE'ers doing to resolve the inconsistencies between RET theories? Is the earth 6000 years old or 4.5 billion years old? Why can't you guys manage to get your story straight?

RET is obviously inconsistent since some people disagree about aspects of the model.

Please tell us which RE scientist has published in a peer-reviewed journal an article claiming that the Earth is 6000 years old.

Quote from: sillyrob on November 19, 2010, 06:00:09 PM

No, gravity is consistent in what we believe.

No it isn't. You have two contradicting theories for gravity. One supposes that gravity occurs via sub-atomic puller particles called "Gravitons" and the other supposes the ridiculous notion that the fabric of space bends.

Which is it? If RET is so overwhelmingly successful, why can't it even tell us what causes gravity?

Even though the fundamental mechanism of gravity is not completely understood, there are several models that can predict its actions to a high degree of accuracy and precision.

Quote from: markjo

Fringe RE beliefs such as hollow earth are not a part of the the RET consensus.

So what makes you think that things like a flat moon and sun are part of the FET consensus?

Simple, there is no FET consensus about the moon or much of anything else.  That's my point.

Quote from: markjo

I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.  Now can we get back on topic and discuss what FE'ers are doing to resolve FET's inconsistencies?  Please?

Well, what are RE'ers doing to resolve the inconsistencies between RET theories? Is the earth 6000 years old or 4.5 billion years old? Why can't you guys manage to get your story straight?

RET is obviously inconsistent since some people disagree about aspects of the model.

*bangs head against a wall several times*

Tom, the RET scientific community rejects fringe RE theories that conflict with the consensus until such time when supporters of those fringe RE theories can provide such evidence to demonstrate that the fringe RE theory more plausible than the currently accepted one. 

And, once again, I must point out that this thread is about the inconsistencies of FET, not RET.  Please stay on topic or I will see if I can get a mod to warn you about derailing this thread.

Markjo just got trolled.

The only way to not fall into the trolling pit of Tom Bishop is ignoring him.

As you see, he's unable to explain the FET inconsistencies, so he tries to derail the thread focusing on the RE only "inconsistence", gravity, but he hasn't said a word yet in PizzaPlanet's thread about RE inconsistences!

Obvious troll is obvios.