The majority of FET is not zetetic

  • 229 Replies
  • 48659 Views
?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #120 on: June 13, 2011, 09:33:14 PM »
I like how you keep ignoring the fact that the entire earth does not accelerate at the same rate, therefore eliminating the possibility of the FE concept of Universal Acceleration.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #121 on: June 13, 2011, 09:42:06 PM »
I like how you keep ignoring the fact that the entire earth does not accelerate at the same rate, therefore eliminating the possibility of the FE concept of Universal Acceleration.

That was already addressed several pages back.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2011, 08:29:08 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #122 on: June 13, 2011, 09:49:59 PM »
Maybe we should break this down.
Tom, do you believe some kind of force is pushing the Earth up? If so, you agree that this force would either be visible or not visible to the naked eye if the Earth were not in the way. Is this correct?
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 09:54:44 PM by Harutsedo »
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.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #123 on: June 13, 2011, 09:53:18 PM »
I like how you keep ignoring the fact that the entire earth does not accelerate at the same rate, therefore eliminating the possibility of the FE concept of Universal Acceleration.

That was already addressed several pages back.

No, you ignored the facts presented that disproved your case. That is different than addressing the point.

Devices exist which can and have measured variations in earth's gravity as small as 6 parts in 109, as detailed here. You were wrong.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #124 on: June 13, 2011, 09:57:30 PM »
Maybe we should break this down.
Tom, do you believe some kind of force is pushing the Earth up? If so, you agree that this force is either visible or not visible. Is this correct?

I do not speculate on whether the mechanism is a force or not, or whether it is visible.

No, you ignored the facts presented that disproved your case. That is different than addressing the point.

Devices exist which can and have measured variations in earth's gravity as small as 6 parts in 109, as detailed here. You were wrong.

The abstract on that article does not say whether they identified variations in g at different heights or locations. It only says that this device is sensitive.

Why should I assume that they've been studying the differences in g at different altitudes?

Why should I assume that the device isn't affected by something as simple as the level of the terrain? Obviously a ball falling down a shaft would be affected by the level of the terrain. If it's in a van how do we know that it's going to places with perfectly level terrain? What controls were put on this?
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 10:29:42 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #125 on: June 13, 2011, 10:04:28 PM »
I do not speculate on whether the mechanism is a force or not, or whether it is visible.

If it's moving the Earth, it's a bloody force! And I'm not asking you to speculate as to whether it is visible or not, but that it has the property of being visible or not. Honestly, zeteticism doesn't mean you can't use logic.
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.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #126 on: June 13, 2011, 10:09:43 PM »
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 #127 on: June 13, 2011, 10:40:25 PM »
Why should I assume that the device isn't affected by something as simple as the level of the terrain? Obviously a ball falling down a shaft would be affected by the level of the terrain. If it's in a van how do we know that it's going to places with perfectly level terrain? What controls were put on this?

You have no evidence that the device is effected by the suggested factors.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Hessy

  • 1185
  • My alts: Edgeworth, any/all spambots
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #128 on: June 14, 2011, 03:27:59 AM »
That's the lame "Just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist" argument again.

Lame?  What's lame is immediately accepting as a fact what your eyes "see" without questioning anything.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #129 on: June 14, 2011, 06:47:25 AM »
Why should I believe in the invisible when I have the visible as an alternative explanation?

Tom, aren't you tired of beating this horse yet?  It's dead.  The Equivalence Principle killed it a long time ago.  Just let it be.

The equivalence principle has nothing to do with empirical arguments of visible vs. invisible, of emperical observation vs unobserved hypothesis.

Actually, it does.  It says that there is no experiment that you can perform locally that can tell the difference between gravity and acceleration.

I am not arguing that an invisible fantasy mechanism cannot possibly pull things to the ground at a necessary rate. I am contrasting the possibilities and arguing on basis of ab absurdio.

Yes, you are arguing the absurdity of gravity with the equally absurd UA.  ::)

We can see the earth is moving upwards to meet us when we step off our chair. This is a direct visual affirmation that the earth is moving upwards.

From your frame of reference.  Repeat the experiment from the earth's frame of reference and what do you see?

We cannot see anything pulling bodies towards the earth. Your explanation is invisible, undetected, and mysterious.

And that is really quite irrelevant.  You can still observe the effects, even if you can't see the mechanism.
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 #130 on: June 14, 2011, 07:40:20 AM »
I'm not mad, am I? Tom is really proposing a visible force, right?
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
  • 17920
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #131 on: June 14, 2011, 09:21:40 AM »
I do not speculate on whether the mechanism is a force or not, or whether it is visible.

If it's moving the Earth, it's a bloody force!

That depends on what you mean by force. A Newtonian Force?

Quote from: General Dissarray
They were using variations in gravity to find oil over 80 years ago. You're just grasping at straws now.

The article you linked says nothing about the success-rate of that device.

The police have been using psychics to solve murders for many years.

Proof of psychic powers, right?

Quote from: Hessy
Lame?  What's lame is immediately accepting as a fact what your eyes "see" without questioning anything.

I did consider whether there was a possibility that my eyes were deceiving me and whether I should disregard the visible to support undiscovered invisible fantasies.

My conclusion was that doing that would be stupid.

Quote from: Markjo
Actually, it does.  It says that there is no experiment that you can perform locally that can tell the difference between gravity and acceleration.

No. My argument has nothing to do with the equivalence principle. My argument is visible vs. invisible, sane vs. insane, empirical vs absurd. One explanation clearly has more empirical evidence than the other.

When I step off a chair I can see the earth rising upwards to meet me. I do not see anything pulling anything.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2011, 09:28:06 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #132 on: June 14, 2011, 09:28:35 AM »
That depends on what you mean by force. A Newtonian Force?

I suppose that part doesn't really matter. I will define a force to be anything that causes motion in our frame of reference.
I'm going to assume you will accept this definition.
You claim gravity is absurd because it requires something invisible to the naked eye. This is true. So in order for UA to be zetetic, the force must be visible by the naked eye if the Earth were not in the way.

EDIT: You aren't claiming that the Earth is moving by magic, are you?
« Last Edit: June 14, 2011, 09:38:48 AM by Harutsedo »
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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #133 on: June 14, 2011, 09:36:54 AM »
I do not speculate on whether the mechanism is a force or not, or whether it is visible.

If it's moving the Earth, it's a bloody force!

That depends on what you mean by force. A Newtonian Force?

What other kind of force could physically move the earth?


Quote from: Markjo
Actually, it does.  It says that there is no experiment that you can perform locally that can tell the difference between gravity and acceleration.

No. My argument has nothing to do with the equivalence principle. My argument is visible vs. invisible, sane vs. insane, empirical vs absurd. One explanation clearly has more empirical evidence than the other.

Step off a chair and you can see the earth rising upwards. You do not see anything pulling anything.

Yes, your argument has everything to do with the equivalence principle, whether you want to admit it or not.   There is exactly the same amount of empirical evidence for you falling to the floor as there is for the floor rising up to meet you because the observations are exactly the same from your frame of reference and the floor's frame of reference.  You don't see anything pulling you to the floor and the floor doesn't see anything pushing it up to meet you.
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.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #134 on: June 14, 2011, 10:12:22 AM »
Tom, what is your take on magnetism? Do you see the puller particles? Does the first magnet get pushed up to the second or does the second get pulled to the first?
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #135 on: June 14, 2011, 10:19:19 AM »
Obviously a ball falling down a shaft would be affected by the level of the terrain.


A ball falling?  Obviously you spout this nonsense without believing it.  This simple sentence proves that you think things are affected by something that causes them to fall to the Earth and you are trying to use your "Earth rises up to meet me" as troll-bait.


Berny
Does NOT like the new look.



To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #136 on: June 14, 2011, 11:38:56 AM »
Obviously a ball falling down a shaft would be affected by the level of the terrain.


A ball falling?  Obviously you spout this nonsense without believing it.  This simple sentence proves that you think things are affected by something that causes them to fall to the Earth and you are trying to use your "Earth rises up to meet me" as troll-bait.


Berny
Does NOT like the new look.

Nono, Berny, you got it all wrong...he was simply describing the event in the manner that you're accustomed to. He meant, of course, "a ball released in mid-air, becoming inert and waiting patiently for the earth/universe to accelerate up to it." This is in accordance with direct first-hand empirical observation, which is what Tom the Zeteticist will be relying on solely now to defend FET.
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #137 on: June 14, 2011, 12:32:39 PM »
This article shows not only that acceleration varies by location, but also that the sun and moon influence measured acceleration.

A gravity map made by the National Geoditic Survey. Other maps found here.

Another related article:
http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/4981/1/03%20D%27agostino.pdf
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #138 on: June 14, 2011, 01:26:06 PM »
Quote from: Harutsedo
So in order for UA to be zetetic, the force must be visible by the naked eye if the Earth were not in the way.

Correct, it should be visible or detectable in some way to be Zetetic.

Quote
Yes, your argument has everything to do with the equivalence principle, whether you want to admit it or not.   There is exactly the same amount of empirical evidence for you falling to the floor as there is for the floor rising up to meet you because the observations are exactly the same from your frame of reference and the floor's frame of reference.  You don't see anything pulling you to the floor and the floor doesn't see anything pushing it up to meet you.

No, my argument has nothing to do with the equivalence principal. The EP says that an upwardly moving earth is indistinguishable from downward pulling puller particles. I am not disputing this.

My argument is that no one has seen or detected downward pulling puller particles, so it should not be assumed or imagined to exist based on the mere possibility alone. They cannot be seen or detected. We can, however, see an upwardly moving earth by simply stepping off of a chair. Therefore an upwardly moving earth is the most empirical explanation.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2011, 01:30:52 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #139 on: June 14, 2011, 02:01:42 PM »
My argument is that no one has seen or detected downward pulling puller particles, so it should not be assumed or imagined to exist based on the mere possibility alone. They cannot be seen or detected. We can, however, see an upwardly moving earth by simply stepping off of a chair. Therefore an upwardly moving earth is the most empirical explanation.

As I've said before, the theoretical "downward pulling puller particles" are just theory (they fit into an existing model), therefore are irrelevant to your own observations.  The existence of gravity is not dependent on gravitons, just the same as the the UA is not dependent on the existence of Dark Energy (as far as you are concerned, UA just happens).

To include gravitons in your argument is incorrect.  You have reached a premature conclusion based on ignorance and lack of rigor, not positive evidence.
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
  • 42529
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #140 on: June 14, 2011, 03:46:58 PM »
My argument is that no one has seen or detected downward pulling puller particles, so it should not be assumed or imagined to exist based on the mere possibility alone.

Then it's a good thing that Quantum Field Theory doesn't base the possibility of the existence of the graviton on the results of your stepping off a chair experiment.  The mutual attraction of massive objects is a well documented 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.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #141 on: June 14, 2011, 05:41:02 PM »
a well documented phenomenon.
theory*
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #142 on: June 14, 2011, 06:28:43 PM »
This may as well become a Batman thread as long as Tom refuses to acknowledge that all his arguments have been destroyed.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Hessy

  • 1185
  • My alts: Edgeworth, any/all spambots
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #143 on: June 14, 2011, 07:54:14 PM »
ITT: Tom avoids GD and Markjo

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #144 on: June 14, 2011, 08:03:19 PM »
a well documented phenomenon.
theory*
No, the phenomenon is fact.  Even FE'ers use gravity to explain the movements of celestial objects.  The mechanism behind the phenomenon is the subject of a number of theories.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2011, 08:05:06 PM by markjo »
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 #145 on: June 14, 2011, 08:30:48 PM »
This may as well become a Batman thread as long as Tom refuses to acknowledge that all his arguments have been destroyed.
What are you talking about? Tom has a well documented argument with those pusher particles.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #146 on: June 14, 2011, 09:28:55 PM »
Tom, I don't do well with neglect. It makes me emotional...

Tom, what is your take on magnetism? Do you see the puller particles? Does the first magnet get pushed up to the second or does the second get pulled to the first?
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #147 on: June 15, 2011, 01:56:12 PM »
No, the phenomenon is fact.  Even FE'ers use gravity to explain the movements of celestial objects.  The mechanism behind the phenomenon is the subject of a number of theories.
Incorrect. Also, define "massive"
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #148 on: June 15, 2011, 02:51:58 PM »
No, the phenomenon is fact.  Even FE'ers use gravity to explain the movements of celestial objects.  The mechanism behind the phenomenon is the subject of a number of theories.
Incorrect.

Elaborate.

Also, define "massive"

An object with mass.
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.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #149 on: June 16, 2011, 04:27:11 AM »
As I've said before, the theoretical "downward pulling puller particles" are just theory (they fit into an existing model), therefore are irrelevant to your own observations.  The existence of gravity is not dependent on gravitons, just the same as the the UA is not dependent on the existence of Dark Energy (as far as you are concerned, UA just happens).

To include gravitons in your argument is incorrect.  You have reached a premature conclusion based on ignorance and lack of rigor, not positive evidence.

Gravitons/bendy space are not irrelevant to my argument.

When I step off a chair I can observe the earth rise upwards. I can see the ground move upwards and run into me. The ground is rising upwards and pushing itself into me. That's +1 point for the concept of an upwardly accelerating earth.

But what about the concept of something pulling me down? What observational or empirical evidence does that have?  I have not observed anything in the slightest which points to this "pulling" idea. I've seen nothing pulling me. No evidence of gravitons. No evidence of bendy space. No evidence of puller fairies.

While an upwardly moving earth is evidenced by observation, nothing about the concept of a "pull" is evidenced by anything. Not even in labs with the most sensitive of equipment have gravitons, bendy space, or other puller fantasies been detected. There is no reason to believe in fantasy.

I can see that the earth moves upwards. What keeps us pinned to the earth is direct and visible. A direct observation beats out speculation any day of the week.

Tom, I don't do well with neglect. It makes me emotional...

Tom, what is your take on magnetism? Do you see the puller particles? Does the first magnet get pushed up to the second or does the second get pulled to the first?

I do not believe in the given explanation for magnetism. The conventional idea is that there are these little "magnetic photon" messenger particles which tell bodies to move through space in this way or that. No one has seen these "magnetic photons." No one has detected these "magnetic photons," not in any machine or lab. It is complete and utter fantasy and speculation. Yet many are willing to plug their ears to the necessity of evidence and believe the media hype.

As a Zetetics we must look at two magnets coming together and say that the motion is visible to us, but we make no speculation on the mechanism behind it.

We are skeptics. We are empericists. This is the correct way to conduct science. It is not right to pile one speculative hypothesis upon the next in rapid and mumbling succession. That is no way to find the truth.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2011, 09:49:50 AM by Tom Bishop »