The majority of FET is not zetetic

  • 229 Replies
  • 25649 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39304
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #30 on: June 07, 2011, 04:06:25 PM »
Quote
Tom is aware, of course, that the Earth does not "rise up" at the same rate over the entire planet.

The variations of g at different locations is so slight that the difference is well within experimental error. Accelerometers aren't exactly known to be perfectly accurate.

Lab grade gravimeters are more than sensitive enough and accurate enough to show beyond any doubt that your statements are false.

Quote from: markjo
Unfortunately this completely ignores the equivalence principle that clearly states that this experiment is inconclusive.

It's not ignoring it at all. The equivalence principal might say that imaginary graviton puller particles are indistinguishable from an upwardly rising earth. But of those two options only an upwardly rising earth is directly observable. When I step off the edge of a chair I can see, directly, that the earth rises upwards. No one can observe graviton puller particles. Graviton puller particles are a complete and utter fantasy which no one has observed or experienced.

This is why an upwardly moving earth is the stronger opponent. There is empirical, observable evidence behind it.

Tom, if the mechanism behind the UA is irrelevant, then so is the mechanism behind gravity.  Whether the earth appears to rise to meet you or you appear fall to meet the earth depends solely on your frame of reference.  This is the heart of the equivalence principle.  You don't see warped space-time and you don't see some mysterious dark energy pushing the earth up to meet you, so both theories are equally likely from what little data you can observe.

BTW, warped spacetime also explains the orbit of Mercury quite nicely.  How does the UA explain the same phenomenon?
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.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #31 on: June 07, 2011, 05:10:54 PM »
The variations of g at different locations is so slight that the difference is well within experimental error. Accelerometers aren't exactly known to be perfectly accurate.
Once again, Tom Bishop is showing he is incapable of understanding such a simple scientific concept as experimental error.

The gravitational pull is routinely measured to within 10 micro Gal, where the average gravitational pull on Earth is about 980 Gal. In other words, it is routinely measured to 0.1x10-6 m/s/s, while the difference between Oslo and Mexico City is about 40000x10-6 m/s/s. That is a mighty small experimental error compared to the measurement you are making.

If you do not believe in me, look at http://microglacoste.com/absolutemeters.php

The variations of g are not within experimental error. They are orders of magnitude larger than the experimental error. You can even doubt the experimental error by a factor of 100 and still get to the inescapable conclusion that the variations of g are a known fact.

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #32 on: June 07, 2011, 09:16:06 PM »
What happens if my observations go against what the society says their observations are? Who is to say which observation is the correct one?

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #33 on: June 08, 2011, 08:19:42 AM »
What I'd like to know is, what does Tommy B observe when somebody else walks off a chair? ???
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #34 on: June 08, 2011, 08:26:47 AM »
What I'd like to know is, what does Tommy B observe when somebody else walks off a chair? ???
Is Tommy B his rapper name? Obviously he's going to see the Earth move up at that person, since seeing anything else would go against his beliefs.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #35 on: June 08, 2011, 03:10:03 PM »
But tom, myself and others have observed falling when walking out of a chair, so explain that.

When you watch someone else do it it's second hand evidence. When you do it yourself and see the earth rise up to you, it's first hand evidence. A first hand experience is more empirical than second hand evidence.

Quote from: General Disarray
The exact phrase I used was "The Universal Accelerator", as in the force that supposedly accelerates the earth in FET. You may think you have observed its effects, but you have not observed it directly.

We know that something must be moving the earth. We do not know or assume that it's a force.

Quote from: Moon Squirter
Gravitons are irrelevant in you observation. You are using lack of evidence for gravitons as evidence that the earth it accelerating upwards.

Gravitons are very relevant. We have three options for the immediate mechanism for gravity: the earth rising, sub-atomic puller particles (gravitons), and the idea that the fabric of space bends (bendy space).

When I walk off the edge of a chair do I see sub-atomic puller particles? No. I do not see any sub-atomic puller particles.

When I walk off the edge of a chair do I see the fabric of space-time bending? No. I do not see the fabric of space-time bending.

When I walk off the edge of a chair do I see the earth rise up to meet me? Yes. I see the earth rise upwards to meet my feet.

Ergo, an upwardly moving earth is the most empirical explanation.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 03:12:11 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Hessy

  • 1185
  • My alts: Edgeworth, any/all spambots
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #36 on: June 08, 2011, 03:12:02 PM »
Stop feeding the troll.  No explanation for "Falling off of a chair" is observable.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39304
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #37 on: June 08, 2011, 03:32:49 PM »
Quote from: Moon Squirter
Gravitons are irrelevant in you observation. You are using lack of evidence for gravitons as evidence that the earth it accelerating upwards.

Gravitons are very relevant. We have three options for the immediate mechanism for gravity: the earth rising, sub-atomic puller particles (gravitons), and the idea that the fabric of space bends (bendy space).

When I walk off the edge of a chair do I see sub-atomic puller particles? No. I do not see any sub-atomic puller particles.

When I walk off the edge of a chair do I see the fabric of space-time bending? No. I do not see the fabric of space-time bending.

When I walk off the edge of a chair do I see the earth rise up to meet me? Yes. I see the earth rise upwards to meet my feet.

Ergo, an upwardly moving earth is the most empirical explanation.

Seriously Tom, would you really expect to see gravitons you or the warping of space-time?  ???

When you walk off the edge of a chair do you see anything pushing the earth up to meet you? No. You see the earth rise upwards to meet your feet because you are your own personal frame of reference.  If you can learn to think outside of your own personal frame of reference, then you will be introduced to a whole new world of possibilities.
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.

Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #38 on: June 08, 2011, 03:38:13 PM »
ITT: Air does not exist.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
If you don't know, whenever you talk about it you're invoking the supernatural
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Unknown != Magic.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #39 on: June 08, 2011, 03:53:11 PM »
Seriously Tom, would you really expect to see gravitons you or the warping of space-time?  ???

Yes. Zeteticism is a philosophy of empiricism."It's invisible" and "they're too tiny to see" are ridiculous arguments. If you're going to tell me that something is pulling me towards the earth you're going to have to present empirical evidence for your position.

Of those three options, gravitons, bendy space, and an upwardly moving earth, only one of them has been observed.

Quote
When you walk off the edge of a chair do you see anything pushing the earth up to meet you?

I make no claim for what pushes the earth, only that it is moving.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 04:22:34 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #40 on: June 08, 2011, 04:27:54 PM »
But Tom, when I step off a chair, I see myself falling. Explain that one. I performed a zetetic experiment and came up with a conclusion that differs than you. Why is that?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #41 on: June 08, 2011, 04:29:41 PM »
But Tom, when I step off a chair, I see myself falling. Explain that one. I performed a zetetic experiment and came up with a conclusion that differs than you. Why is that?

When you step off a chair you observe the ground rushing upwards to meet your feet.

You don't observe yourself being pulled towards the earth. What's pulling you? Puller particles? Ridiculous.

*

Hessy

  • 1185
  • My alts: Edgeworth, any/all spambots
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #42 on: June 08, 2011, 04:49:57 PM »
But Tom, when I step off a chair, I see myself falling. Explain that one. I performed a zetetic experiment and came up with a conclusion that differs than you. Why is that?
You don't observe yourself being pulled towards the earth. What's pulling you? Puller particles? Ridiculous.

Irrelevant.  Personal observation for this phenomenon is completely subjective, regardless of how ridiculous it may sound.  Also remember than any hyperbolic idiot can make either theory sound like the more "ridiculous" theory.

Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #43 on: June 08, 2011, 05:04:18 PM »
Dang, Tom. The floor must have really hated you when you were little.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
If you don't know, whenever you talk about it you're invoking the supernatural
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Unknown != Magic.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #44 on: June 08, 2011, 05:50:24 PM »
Irrelevant.  Personal observation for this phenomenon is completely subjective, regardless of how ridiculous it may sound.

It's not subjective. When I step off a chair I don't observe anything pulling me. I observe the earth rising upwards to meet me. That's a direct observation.

It's the RE'ers who are saying that our senses are fooling us and that it's really just something invisible pulling us to the earth. RE'ers are choosing illusion over direct observation.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 05:57:54 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Hessy

  • 1185
  • My alts: Edgeworth, any/all spambots
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #45 on: June 08, 2011, 06:02:39 PM »
Irrelevant.  Personal observation for this phenomenon is completely subjective, regardless of how ridiculous it may sound.

It's not subjective. When I step off a chair I don't observe anything pulling me. I observe the earth rising upwards to meet me. That's a direct observation.

It's the RE'ers who are saying that our senses are fooling us and that it's really just something invisible pulling us to the earth. RE'ers are choosing illusion over direct observation.

To-mae-to, to-mah-to.  Earth rising to meet us, gravity pulling us toward it.  It's been thoroughly established that both (would) equally replicate the "falling off of a chair" phenomena.

To claim one is true and the other is false solely based on observation is to claim one opinion is wrong when another is correct.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #46 on: June 08, 2011, 06:12:10 PM »
So you can observe that some acceleration is taking place. You have not observed a thing which is pushing the earth upwards at 9.8 m/s2.

Also the universal accelerator is one thing which observational evidence directly contradicts, as was pointed out here earlier.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #47 on: June 08, 2011, 07:09:04 PM »
But Tom, when I step off a chair, I see myself falling. Explain that one. I performed a zetetic experiment and came up with a conclusion that differs than you. Why is that?

When you step off a chair you observe the ground rushing upwards to meet your feet.

You don't observe yourself being pulled towards the earth. What's pulling you? Puller particles? Ridiculous.
What's making the Earth go upwards? Upwards particles?

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #48 on: June 08, 2011, 07:17:09 PM »
Irrelevant.  Personal observation for this phenomenon is completely subjective, regardless of how ridiculous it may sound.

It's not subjective. When I step off a chair I don't observe anything pulling me. I observe the earth rising upwards to meet me. That's a direct observation.

It's the RE'ers who are saying that our senses are fooling us and that it's really just something invisible pulling us to the earth. RE'ers are choosing illusion over direct observation.
I directly observed myself falling to the ground. You cannot tell me that my observation is somehow less observational than your own. The point I'm trying to make is that your whole claim of stepping off a chair and observing what happens cannot be used as evidence, because we both seem to see different things.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39304
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #49 on: June 08, 2011, 07:18:36 PM »
Seriously Tom, would you really expect to see gravitons you or the warping of space-time?  ???

Yes. Zeteticism is a philosophy of empiricism."It's invisible" and "they're too tiny to see" are ridiculous arguments. If you're going to tell me that something is pulling me towards the earth you're going to have to present empirical evidence for your position.

Of those three options, gravitons, bendy space, and an upwardly moving earth, only one of them has been observed.

Tom, if you can only believe in what you see, then you have a very small world view, indeed.

Quote
When you walk off the edge of a chair do you see anything pushing the earth up to meet you?

I make no claim for what pushes the earth, only that it is moving.

Yet something must push the earth upwards.  Not having a mechanism to push the FE (as well as all of the celestial objects) upwards is just as big a hole in your theory as RET not having observed gravitons or warped space-time.
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.

?

11cookeaw1

Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #50 on: June 08, 2011, 10:14:01 PM »
Irrelevant.  Personal observation for this phenomenon is completely subjective, regardless of how ridiculous it may sound.

It's not subjective. When I step off a chair I don't observe anything pulling me. I observe the earth rising upwards to meet me. That's a direct observation.

It's the RE'ers who are saying that our senses are fooling us and that it's really just something invisible pulling us to the earth. RE'ers are choosing illusion over direct observation.

Can you see magnetism? No you can't. When a magnet attracts a metal object do you see any sub atomic particles or anything like that? No.
Can you see the effects of it? Yes.

Gravity may be an invisible force.
So is magnetism...

Can you see any force pushing the earth up? No, what about turning the "celestial gears"?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #51 on: June 08, 2011, 11:07:55 PM »
Can you see any force pushing the earth up? No, what about turning the "celestial gears"?

No, but you can see the effects of it.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #52 on: June 08, 2011, 11:43:47 PM »
Can you see any force pushing the earth up? No, what about turning the "celestial gears"?

No, but you can see the effects of it.

And the observed effects are in direct contradiction to the (non-zetetic) theory that something is pushing the entire earth upwards at exactly 1 g.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #53 on: June 09, 2011, 12:03:39 AM »
Quote from: Moon Squirter
Gravitons are irrelevant in you observation. You are using lack of evidence for gravitons as evidence that the earth it accelerating upwards.

Gravitons are very relevant. We have three options for the immediate mechanism for gravity: the earth rising, sub-atomic puller particles (gravitons), and the idea that the fabric of space bends (bendy space).

When I walk off the edge of a chair do I see sub-atomic puller particles? No. I do not see any sub-atomic puller particles.
..
..
yada yada yada

Tom,

You are using your lack of evidence of gravitons as an argument for universal acceleration. As a practising pseudoscientist, you are using "Argument for ignorance" as logical tool to make your point. 

"I cannot see gravitons*, therefore the earth is accelerating upwards" sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?

 *the actual existence of gravitons is irrelevant, it's your argument that is silly nonsense.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39304
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #54 on: June 09, 2011, 06:25:35 AM »
Can you see any force pushing the earth up? No, what about turning the "celestial gears"?

No, but you can see the effects of it.

You can observe the effects of gravity as well.
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.

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #55 on: June 09, 2011, 06:43:34 AM »
So let's go over a list of the aspects of FET for which no verifiable empirical evidence has been presented (or in some cases experimental evidence directly contradicts):

  • The Universal Accelerator
  • Bendy Light
  • "Aetheric Eddification"
  • The conspiracy
  • Luminescent moon/sun life
  • The anti-moon
  • The sub-moon
  • The "greater ice wall" (or whatever contains the air)
  • Celestial gears
  • Whatever causes the celestial bodies to remain above the earth and moving as they do
  • Dinosaurs building boats to cross the oceans

That's just all I could think of off the top of my head, feel free to add to the list. It is entirely fair to accuse these self-proclaimed "zetetics" of hypocrisy when the vast majority of what they believe has no more observational evidence behind it than "it looks flat".

Well put.  I completely agree.

And the observed effects are in direct contradiction to the (non-zetetic) theory that something is pushing the entire earth upwards at exactly 1 g.

You almost sound like an old school flat earther which is more than I can say for the arguments of other professed flat earth believers in this thread.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #56 on: June 09, 2011, 06:56:05 PM »
Irrelevant.  Personal observation for this phenomenon is completely subjective, regardless of how ridiculous it may sound.

It's not subjective. When I step off a chair I don't observe anything pulling me. I observe the earth rising upwards to meet me. That's a direct observation.

It's the RE'ers who are saying that our senses are fooling us and that it's really just something invisible pulling us to the earth. RE'ers are choosing illusion over direct observation.

To-mae-to, to-mah-to.  Earth rising to meet us, gravity pulling us toward it.  It's been thoroughly established that both (would) equally replicate the "falling off of a chair" phenomena.

To claim one is true and the other is false solely based on observation is to claim one opinion is wrong when another is correct.

What's wrong with claiming that something is true or false based on observation?

An idea of any merit should have something to back it up. What more could you ask for than direct observation?

In an argument on the existence of ghosts, who has the more powerful argument. The guy mumbling "just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist" or the skeptic who will not believe in ghosts until a ghost has been detected or observed?

Direct observation is the most powerful of evidence. It certainly beats out opposing theories involving invisible space fabrics and sub-atomic puller particles.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2011, 06:57:46 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39304
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #57 on: June 09, 2011, 07:03:26 PM »
Direct observation is the most powerful of evidence.

This might be true if your senses weren't so limited and easy to fool.
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.

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #58 on: June 09, 2011, 07:05:16 PM »
So if I release something from my hand, and I observe it fall, how is it that my observation is somehow less credible than your own?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #59 on: June 09, 2011, 07:09:39 PM »
So if I release something from my hand, and I observe it fall, how is it that my observation is somehow less credible than your own?

Quote from: Tom Bishop
When you watch someone [or something] else do it it's second hand evidence. When you do it yourself and see the earth rise up to meet you, it's first hand evidence. A first hand experience is more empirical than second hand evidence.