« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7   Go Down

A major flaw in the zetetic model

  • 199 Replies
  • 50688 Views
?

RoundEarthGuy

  • 245
  • +0/-0
A major flaw in the zetetic model
« on: December 12, 2010, 11:30:37 AM »
Let's say that there are two possibilities: The Earth is round and the Earth is flat.



If the Earth is round:

Zetetic method: Oh!  The Earth looks flat! 

Zetetic conclusion: The Earth is flat



If the Earth is flat:

Zetetic method: Oh!  The Earth looks flat!

Zetetic conclusion: The Earth is flat.



My point?  That the Zetetic method gives the same result regardless of whether or not the Earth is round or flat.  Therefore, to try to use the zetetic method to support the FE theory is flawed, because that same method is not exclusive to a FE.

An analogy:

An imaginary method called the "mix together blue and yellow" method.  If the result turns out to be green, then Colts will make the playoffs.  If not, then the Colts will not make the playoffs.

If the Colts make the playoffs:

The blue and yellow will mix to be green.  Therefore, the Colts will not make the playoffs.

If the Colts don't make the playoffs:

The blue and yellow will mix to be green.  Therefore, the Colts will not make the playoffs.

See?  The zetetic method will support FE regardless of whether or not the Earth is really round or flat; note that satellite images show that the Earth is obviously round, especially since we landed on the moon,  therefore it is a biased and unreliable method and cannot be used as an if A then B proof.
Logged
?

Hazbollah

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2436
  • +0/-0
  • Earth Shape Apathetic.
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2010, 11:48:00 AM »
Your understanding of Zeteticism is flawed.
Logged
Always check your tackle- Caerphilly school of Health. If I see an innuendo in my post, I'll be sure to whip it out.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2010, 12:08:14 PM »
Quote from: Hazbollah on December 12, 2010, 11:48:00 AM
Your understanding of Zeteticism is flawed.
Logged
?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • +0/-0
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2010, 12:41:12 PM »
Quote from: Hazbollah on December 12, 2010, 11:48:00 AM
Your understanding of Zeteticism is flawed.

Why?
Logged
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences
*

gotham

  • 3624
  • +2/-6
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2010, 01:06:37 PM »
Quote from: Kira-SY on December 12, 2010, 12:41:12 PM
Quote from: Hazbollah on December 12, 2010, 11:48:00 AM
Your understanding of Zeteticism is flawed.

Why?

Because of the assumption of the conclusive element before an observation is made?
Logged
?

fluffycornsnake

  • Official Member
  • 1307
  • +0/-0
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2010, 03:01:54 PM »
Quote from: RoundEarthGuy on December 12, 2010, 11:30:37 AM
If the Earth is round:

Zetetic method: Oh!  The Earth looks round! 

Zetetic conclusion: The Earth is round



If the Earth is flat:

Zetetic method: Oh!  The Earth looks flat!

Zetetic conclusion: The Earth is flat.

Fixed it for you.
Logged
?

Thork

Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #6 on: December 12, 2010, 04:10:02 PM »
Yes, agreed with above. The earth looks flat because it is. If it were round, it would look round. Your argument is akin to me saying "My car looks red, it must be green". No, it is red. It looks red. Therefore it is red. Earth looks flat ... so what shape do you suspect it must be?
Logged
?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5032
  • +0/-0
  • Magic specialist
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2010, 04:11:32 PM »
Quote from: gotham on December 12, 2010, 01:06:37 PM
Quote from: Kira-SY on December 12, 2010, 12:41:12 PM
Quote from: Hazbollah on December 12, 2010, 11:48:00 AM
Your understanding of Zeteticism is flawed.

Why?

Because of the assumption of the conclusive element before an observation is made?

The problem arises when the conclusion "the part of the earth I can currently see looks generally flat, therefore the entire earth must be flat" is used as the only justification for other conclusions, such as the antimoon, UA, bendy light, life on the moon, the conspiracy, etc.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2010, 04:21:24 PM by General Disarray »
Logged
Quote from: Thork on April 02, 2012, 01:56:05 AM
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.
?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2010, 04:37:39 PM »
Bloody hell, are people still using the old "herp derp the earth looks flat, duuuh" idea?
I pointed out over a year ago that the earth doesn't look flat. If the earth looked flat you'd be able to see further over the horizon than you really can. It looks like what you'd expect to see if you were standing on a gigantic spheroid. If we were standing on a gigantic flat plane it would look quite different. Let me see if I can find my old post about it.
Logged
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.
?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #9 on: December 12, 2010, 04:42:09 PM »
Here we are:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38680.0

My posts in this thread clarify why the earth doesn't look flat.
Logged
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.
?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5032
  • +0/-0
  • Magic specialist
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2010, 04:46:20 PM »
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 12, 2010, 04:37:39 PM
Bloody hell, are people still using the old "herp derp the earth looks flat, duuuh" idea?
I pointed out over a year ago that the earth doesn't look flat. If the earth looked flat you'd be able to see further over the horizon than you really can. It looks like what you'd expect to see if you were standing on a gigantic spheroid. If we were standing on a gigantic flat plane it would look quite different. Let me see if I can find my old post about it.

They (especially Wilmore lately) are the ones that keep bringing it up.
Logged
Quote from: Thork on April 02, 2012, 01:56:05 AM
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.
?

Thork

Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #11 on: December 12, 2010, 04:55:52 PM »
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 12, 2010, 04:42:09 PM
Here we are:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38680.0

My posts in this thread clarify why the earth doesn't look flat.
Oh, the old 'sinking ship' chestnut - I can't see France but I can see some hills. Answered here.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm
Expanded upon here
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm
Wrapped up here.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za34.htm
« Last Edit: December 12, 2010, 04:57:27 PM by Thork »
Logged
?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #12 on: December 12, 2010, 05:16:46 PM »
Quote from: Thork on December 12, 2010, 04:55:52 PM
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 12, 2010, 04:42:09 PM
Here we are:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38680.0

My posts in this thread clarify why the earth doesn't look flat.
Oh, the old 'sinking ship' chestnut - I can't see France but I can see some hills. Answered here.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm
Expanded upon here
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm
Wrapped up here.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za34.htm

The mechanism by which the earth does not look flat is not relevant to the assertion, proved here by your beloved Rowbottom, that the earth does indeed not look like a flat plane. He confirms things disappear over the horizon, thus confirming an appearance different from flatness.
Should have switched your brain on, shouldn't you?
Whether the earth doesn't look flat because it's round, or the earth doesn't look flat because of some crazy perspective effect, the result is the same - the earth doesn't look flat.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2010, 05:18:23 PM by Thermal Detonator »
Logged
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #13 on: December 12, 2010, 05:25:02 PM »
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 12, 2010, 04:37:39 PM
Bloody hell, are people still using the old "herp derp the earth looks flat, duuuh" idea?
I pointed out over a year ago that the earth doesn't look flat. If the earth looked flat you'd be able to see further over the horizon than you really can. It looks like what you'd expect to see if you were standing on a gigantic spheroid. If we were standing on a gigantic flat plane it would look quite different. Let me see if I can find my old post about it.


What you can or can't see, and indeed what you expect to see are totally different to the apparent shape of the Earth. Please lurk moar.
Logged
"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
?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2010, 05:36:46 PM »
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 12, 2010, 05:25:02 PM
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 12, 2010, 04:37:39 PM
Bloody hell, are people still using the old "herp derp the earth looks flat, duuuh" idea?
I pointed out over a year ago that the earth doesn't look flat. If the earth looked flat you'd be able to see further over the horizon than you really can. It looks like what you'd expect to see if you were standing on a gigantic spheroid. If we were standing on a gigantic flat plane it would look quite different. Let me see if I can find my old post about it.


What you can or can't see, and indeed what you expect to see are totally different to the apparent shape of the Earth. Please lurk moar.

See the post above yours. Next.
Logged
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #15 on: December 12, 2010, 05:49:29 PM »
Things disappearing over the horizon look the way they look. They do not change the way the Earth looks.


The Earth appears to be generally flat. What you deduce from other events/occurences is a totally different matter. Like I said, lurk, this has been debated at length of late.
Logged
"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
?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2010, 06:04:04 PM »
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 12, 2010, 05:49:29 PM
Things disappearing over the horizon look the way they look. They do not change the way the Earth looks.


Yes, if something appears to sink down as it moves away from you, that is inconsistent with the normal appearance of the way an object travels over a flat plane. I doubt you'll disagree with that statement. Therefore, a surface which produces that effect as something moves across it does not resemble a normal flat plane. Whether it IS a flat plane or not is irrelevant: it does not LOOK like one.
The sinking ship effect - regardless of cause - prevents the earth from having the appearance of a flat plane. Any provably flat plane [excluding earths surface to avoid pedantic semantics] that can be modelled or measured does not have a point on it at which an item ceases to be visible from any viewpoint higher than the surface of that plane. The earth's surface does. It does not share the visual properties of any other flat plane. So how the hell can you say it looks like one?

Sorry Wilmore, but if you want to carry on your argument that the earth looks flat, you'll have to resort to pretending to not understand what I just typed there. Your only other options are to (a) claim objects vanish on other flat planes (for which you'll need to give examples) or (b) claim objects don't sink over the horizon after all.
Anything else is an admission that the earth does not look flat.
Logged
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.
*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2010, 06:07:29 PM »
The surface of the Earth in the FE model is as flat as it is spherical in the RE model. Your deductions strictly hold for Euclidean geometry. Because you had neglected crucial details of reality, your deductions may not apply to reality.
Logged
*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8880
  • +3/-3
  • Semper vigilans
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #18 on: December 12, 2010, 06:09:25 PM »
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 12, 2010, 06:04:04 PM
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 12, 2010, 05:49:29 PM
Things disappearing over the horizon look the way they look. They do not change the way the Earth looks.


Yes, if something appears to sink down as it moves away from you, that is inconsistent with the normal appearance of the way an object travels over a flat plane. I doubt you'll disagree with that statement. Therefore, a surface which produces that effect as something moves across it does not resemble a normal flat plane. Whether it IS a flat plane or not is irrelevant: it does not LOOK like one.
You completely butchered what LW has said. Once again, sinking observed does not change the way the Earth itself looks.
Logged
Quote from: James on August 26, 2011, 05:40:53 AM
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?
?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2010, 06:11:49 PM »
Quote from: parsec on December 12, 2010, 06:07:29 PM
The surface of the Earth in the FE model is as flat as it is spherical in the RE model. Your deductions strictly hold for Euclidean geometry. Because you had neglected crucial details of reality, your deductions may not apply to reality.

I see, you claim Euclidean geometry does not approximate to the Earth? Interesting and also f*cking stupid at the same time.
Logged
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.
*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #20 on: December 12, 2010, 06:12:51 PM »
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 12, 2010, 06:11:49 PM
Quote from: parsec on December 12, 2010, 06:07:29 PM
The surface of the Earth in the FE model is as flat as it is spherical in the RE model. Your deductions strictly hold for Euclidean geometry. Because you had neglected crucial details of reality, your deductions may not apply to reality.

I see, you claim Euclidean geometry does not approximate to the Earth? Interesting and also f*cking stupid at the same time.

How so?
Logged
?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2010, 06:15:26 PM »
Quote from: Dino Birdman :] on December 12, 2010, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 12, 2010, 06:04:04 PM
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 12, 2010, 05:49:29 PM
Things disappearing over the horizon look the way they look. They do not change the way the Earth looks.


Yes, if something appears to sink down as it moves away from you, that is inconsistent with the normal appearance of the way an object travels over a flat plane. I doubt you'll disagree with that statement. Therefore, a surface which produces that effect as something moves across it does not resemble a normal flat plane. Whether it IS a flat plane or not is irrelevant: it does not LOOK like one.
You completely butchered what LW has said. Once again, sinking observed does not change the way the Earth itself looks.
Er, yes it does, because the surface of a plane always remains visible when an object moving across it it visible. Hence, the shape of the surface is implicit in the movement of the object. Lrn2geometry.
Logged
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.
?

Thork

Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #22 on: December 12, 2010, 06:15:56 PM »
TD, its ClockTower isn't it? You disappear, he arrives. He leaves shamefaced, next day you appear. Same belligerent manner, same method of replying to every thread whether or not you have anything to add to it. Same refusal to actually read the replies you are given. Do we need a Th-Th-Th-Thermal Detonator Fail!!!! thread now ???
Logged
?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #23 on: December 12, 2010, 06:17:31 PM »
Quote from: Thork on December 12, 2010, 06:15:56 PM
TD, its ClockTower isn't it? You disappear, he arrives. He leaves shamefaced, next day you appear. Same belligerent manner, same method of replying to every thread whether or not you have anything to add to it. Same refusal to actually read the replies you are given. Do we need a Th-Th-Th-Thermal Detonator Fail!!!! thread now ???

I see, you have nothing more to add? Just insults? Thus I win.
Logged
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.
?

Thork

Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #24 on: December 12, 2010, 06:17:55 PM »
I knew it was you. lol!
Logged
*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8880
  • +3/-3
  • Semper vigilans
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #25 on: December 12, 2010, 06:21:34 PM »
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 12, 2010, 06:15:26 PM
Quote from: Dino Birdman :] on December 12, 2010, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 12, 2010, 06:04:04 PM
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 12, 2010, 05:49:29 PM
Things disappearing over the horizon look the way they look. They do not change the way the Earth looks.


Yes, if something appears to sink down as it moves away from you, that is inconsistent with the normal appearance of the way an object travels over a flat plane. I doubt you'll disagree with that statement. Therefore, a surface which produces that effect as something moves across it does not resemble a normal flat plane. Whether it IS a flat plane or not is irrelevant: it does not LOOK like one.
You completely butchered what LW has said. Once again, sinking observed does not change the way the Earth itself looks.
Er, yes it does, because the surface of a plane always remains visible when an object moving across it it visible. Hence, the shape of the surface is implicit in the movement of the object. Lrn2geometry.
So you're telling me the earth suddenly looks round when objects move acoss it?
Logged
Quote from: James on August 26, 2011, 05:40:53 AM
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?
?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #26 on: December 12, 2010, 06:25:23 PM »
Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 12, 2010, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 12, 2010, 06:15:26 PM
Quote from: Dino Birdman :] on December 12, 2010, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 12, 2010, 06:04:04 PM
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 12, 2010, 05:49:29 PM
Things disappearing over the horizon look the way they look. They do not change the way the Earth looks.


Yes, if something appears to sink down as it moves away from you, that is inconsistent with the normal appearance of the way an object travels over a flat plane. I doubt you'll disagree with that statement. Therefore, a surface which produces that effect as something moves across it does not resemble a normal flat plane. Whether it IS a flat plane or not is irrelevant: it does not LOOK like one.
You completely butchered what LW has said. Once again, sinking observed does not change the way the Earth itself looks.
Er, yes it does, because the surface of a plane always remains visible when an object moving across it it visible. Hence, the shape of the surface is implicit in the movement of the object. Lrn2geometry.
So you're telling me the earth suddenly looks round when objects move acoss it?

Objects moving away from an observer exhibit an appearance identical to that of an object moving across a very large sphere, yes. Even Rowbottom acknowledges this. Except in the Bedford Level experiments, where he claims it doesn't happen. Poor confused chap. I don't think that's the correct way to use the word "suddenly" though.
Logged
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.
*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8880
  • +3/-3
  • Semper vigilans
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #27 on: December 12, 2010, 06:30:21 PM »
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 12, 2010, 06:25:23 PM
Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 12, 2010, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 12, 2010, 06:15:26 PM
Quote from: Dino Birdman :] on December 12, 2010, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 12, 2010, 06:04:04 PM
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 12, 2010, 05:49:29 PM
Things disappearing over the horizon look the way they look. They do not change the way the Earth looks.


Yes, if something appears to sink down as it moves away from you, that is inconsistent with the normal appearance of the way an object travels over a flat plane. I doubt you'll disagree with that statement. Therefore, a surface which produces that effect as something moves across it does not resemble a normal flat plane. Whether it IS a flat plane or not is irrelevant: it does not LOOK like one.
You completely butchered what LW has said. Once again, sinking observed does not change the way the Earth itself looks.
Er, yes it does, because the surface of a plane always remains visible when an object moving across it it visible. Hence, the shape of the surface is implicit in the movement of the object. Lrn2geometry.
So you're telling me the earth suddenly looks round when objects move acoss it?

Objects moving away from an observer exhibit an appearance identical to that of an object moving across a very large sphere, yes. Even Rowbottom acknowledges this. Except in the Bedford Level experiments, where he claims it doesn't happen. Poor confused chap. I don't think that's the correct way to use the word "suddenly" though.
I'm talking about the Earth's appearence, not the object's.
Logged
Quote from: James on August 26, 2011, 05:40:53 AM
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?
?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #28 on: December 12, 2010, 06:34:02 PM »
Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 12, 2010, 06:30:21 PM
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 12, 2010, 06:25:23 PM
Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 12, 2010, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 12, 2010, 06:15:26 PM
Quote from: Dino Birdman :] on December 12, 2010, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 12, 2010, 06:04:04 PM
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 12, 2010, 05:49:29 PM
Things disappearing over the horizon look the way they look. They do not change the way the Earth looks.


Yes, if something appears to sink down as it moves away from you, that is inconsistent with the normal appearance of the way an object travels over a flat plane. I doubt you'll disagree with that statement. Therefore, a surface which produces that effect as something moves across it does not resemble a normal flat plane. Whether it IS a flat plane or not is irrelevant: it does not LOOK like one.
You completely butchered what LW has said. Once again, sinking observed does not change the way the Earth itself looks.
Er, yes it does, because the surface of a plane always remains visible when an object moving across it it visible. Hence, the shape of the surface is implicit in the movement of the object. Lrn2geometry.
So you're telling me the earth suddenly looks round when objects move acoss it?

Objects moving away from an observer exhibit an appearance identical to that of an object moving across a very large sphere, yes. Even Rowbottom acknowledges this. Except in the Bedford Level experiments, where he claims it doesn't happen. Poor confused chap. I don't think that's the correct way to use the word "suddenly" though.
I'm talking about the Earth's appearence, not the object's.

Jesus, you're a bit slower than you used to be. I covered the earth's appearance already on the previous page. Or maybe you didn't notice because I didn't mention birds or dinosaurs? I've covered both actual visual appearance (not like a plane) and inferred structure from another object's appearance (not like a plane). Try to keep up, or if you can't, feel free not to contribute. Thanks in advance.
Logged
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.
*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8880
  • +3/-3
  • Semper vigilans
Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model
« Reply #29 on: December 12, 2010, 06:35:59 PM »
So you admit that the Earth's observable shape itself doesn't change. Thanks!
Logged
Quote from: James on August 26, 2011, 05:40:53 AM
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7   Go Up
« previous next »