The majority of FET is not zetetic

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 15, 2011, 01:56:12 PM

Also, define "massive"

An object with mass.

Is that to say you're about to accept my banana challenge?

Quote from: Puttah on June 14, 2011, 09:28:55 PM

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

Quote from: Puttah 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?

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.

Then you agree that two things can be attracted to each other without a visibly clear mechanism behind it.
You also agree with the concept of a frame of reference.
And finally, you agree with the zetetic approach of eliminating all other possible explanations before making any conclusive remarks.

Yet despite all this, you still hold firmly to the fact that the Earth is moving up to your feet and you're not falling to it.

Hypocrite much?

Quote from: Moon squirter on June 14, 2011, 02:01:42 PM

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.

That's because your argument is bunk.

You cannot argue for something based on the falsehood (i.e. "I cannot see gravitons", therefore I am not being pulled).  This is because:

• It is an Argument for Ignorance, a basic logical flaw (absence of evidence != evidence for absence)
• People did not discover gravity after gravitons were postulated to exist.  Rather, gravitons attempt to make sense of what is already known.  Your argument is backwards.

Your could also say:  "It feels like the earth is coming up, although I have no independent evidence of a UA.   I know that magnetism is invisible, so perhaps there is another type of invisible force.  Therefore I need to do more research".

Please come up with a coherent argument, then we can continue the debate.

Then you agree that two things can be attracted to each other without a visibly clear mechanism behind it.

I didn't' agree to anything. I didn't agree to attraction. Magnets could be pushed together by some means for all we know. I don't make any speculation beyond what is visible and detectable. The movement of the magnets is visible to me, but the cause behind it is unknown at present time.

That's because your argument is bunk.

You cannot argue for something based on the falsehood (i.e. "I cannot see gravitons", therefore I am not being pulled).  This is because:

    It is an Argument for Ignorance, a basic logical flaw (absence of evidence != evidence for absence)
    People did not discover gravity after gravitons were postulated to exist.  Rather, gravitons attempt to make sense of what is already known.  Your argument is backwards.

My argument isn't "I cannot see gravitons", therefore I am not being pulled." My argument is "There is no evidence that anything is pulling me towards the earth, therefore there is no reason to believe that I am being pulled."

All of your puller phenomena are invisible and speculative. There isn't the slightest bit of evidence for gravitons, bendy space, or whatever other puller fantasies you have up your arsenal. The concept of invisible pull is thoroughly unsupported.

Except for the fact that when I step off of a chair, I see myself fall to the Earth. That evidence is as good and relevant as your own.

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 in the media hype.

Incorrect.  We don't "plug our ears to the necessity of evidence and believe in the media hype".  We produce a functional model that we generally accept as true/fact until new evidence says otherwise.

I find it odd that FE'ers seem to use Russell's Teapot so often, yet balk in situations such as this.

Tom, you seem to be convinced that if there is no evidence for it, it cannot be true. 

Quite a persistent one aren't you. Never gonna admit your argument is flawed? So be it.

I didn't' agree to anything. I didn't agree to attraction. Magnets could be pushed together by some means for all we know.

That's idiotic. The only difference between pushing and pulling is the frame of reference in which we observe the movement. Have you not understood this yet?

Quote from: Puttah on June 16, 2011, 05:21:08 AM

Then you agree that two things can be attracted to each other without a visibly clear mechanism behind it.

I don't make any speculation beyond what is visible and detectable. The movement of the magnets is visible to me, but the cause behind it is unknown at present time.

You're right about the fact that you can't see the mechanism, therefore you shouldn't be making any judgements about what is happening. Use that exact same argument with either falling to the Earth or the Earth meeting us. It'll finally put this argument to rest and we can finally come to the correct zetetic conclusion, "it is inconclusive".

My argument isn't "I cannot see gravitons", therefore I am not being pulled." My argument is "There is no evidence that anything is pulling me towards the earth, therefore there is no reason to believe that I am being pulled."

So therefore the Earth is being pulled to you?

Quote from: markjo on June 15, 2011, 02:51:58 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 15, 2011, 01:56:12 PM

Also, define "massive"

An object with mass.

Is that to say you're about to accept my banana challenge?

Perhaps.  Please refresh my memory as to the parameters of your banana challenge.

Perhaps.  Please refresh my memory as to the parameters of your banana challenge.

Conclusively prove that bananas extort a gravitational force either on each other or on other objects.

Quote from: markjo on June 16, 2011, 10:19:21 AM

Perhaps.  Please refresh my memory as to the parameters of your banana challenge.

Conclusively prove that bananas extort a gravitational force either on each other or on other objects.

How big are the bananas?

Conclusively prove that bananas extort a gravitational force either on each other or on other objects.

Can't he use something more massive, like lead or Steve Job's ego?

Quote from: Puttah on June 16, 2011, 05:21:08 AM

Then you agree that two things can be attracted to each other without a visibly clear mechanism behind it.

I didn't' agree to anything. I didn't agree to attraction. Magnets could be pushed together by some means for all we know. I don't make any speculation beyond what is visible and detectable. The movement of the magnets is visible to me, but the cause behind it is unknown at present time.

Quote from: Moon Squirter

That's because your argument is bunk.

You cannot argue for something based on the falsehood (i.e. "I cannot see gravitons", therefore I am not being pulled).  This is because:

    It is an Argument for Ignorance, a basic logical flaw (absence of evidence != evidence for absence)
    People did not discover gravity after gravitons were postulated to exist.  Rather, gravitons attempt to make sense of what is already known.  Your argument is backwards.

My argument isn't "I cannot see gravitons", therefore I am not being pulled." My argument is "There is no evidence that anything is pulling me towards the earth, therefore there is no reason to believe that I am being pulled."

All of your puller phenomena are invisible and speculative. There isn't the slightest bit of evidence for gravitons, bendy space, or whatever other puller fantasies you have up your arsenal. The concept of invisible pull is thoroughly unsupported.

You are still using lack of evidence of <gravitons> to support you UA hypothesis.  Please try again, without using the word "graviton".

You are still using lack of evidence of <gravitons> to support you UA hypothesis.  Please try again, without using the word "graviton".

Tom knows fully well his logic is flawed, it's just that we're arguing against a firm believer that is purposely blinding himself in order to hold his position. Backing down is not an option.

Now that we've ripped Tom a new one for his UA explanation, we should now address that the sun and moon being discs isn't very Zetetic. The reason I say this is because unless you pull some wacky ass bendy garbage out of nowhere, there is really no reason that observing the sun and moon should conclude that they are discs and not spheres. It's not hard to see what a disc would look like at different angles (throw a Frisbee around for a bit), and the path of the sun and moon are not consistent with how a giant disc floating over Earth would look.

I guess you couldn't really use simple observation to conclude the sun is in fact a sphere, but you can conclude it isn't a disc this way. The moon is much easier. It's well documented that the moon wobbles a bit, and you can see different parts of the surface from when it first rises to when it sets.

Do any RE'ers here actually think through these ludicrous arguments, or are they simply a default setting?

Do any RE'ers here actually think through these ludicrous arguments, or are they simply a default setting?

I once thought relativity was a ludicrous theory, that is until I studied it.

Hello, I'm new and French, so please excuse my bad english.

I'm reading this thread since some hours, and something is annoying me.

Tom you say that Earth is accelerating toward us, but how do you explain that when I take a heavy thing, this thing remains heavy after I took it ?

I mean, if I'm on a car driving and catch my Mc Donalds, my Bic Mac menu is now moving at the same speed as me, and it haves no reason to have weight...

Oh fudge I'm sorry, translating my thought is kind of hard...

Do any RE'ers here actually think through these ludicrous arguments, or are they simply a default setting?

Do any FE'ers here actually think through their ludicrous arguments, or are they simply a default setting?

Oh fudge I'm sorry, translating my thought is kind of hard...

We understand your thoughts, but they're wrong. If an object is accelerating towards you or you're accelerating towards an object, it doesn't make a difference. You both feel the weight of each other.

Quote from: Artexflow on June 20, 2011, 07:02:56 AM

Oh fudge I'm sorry, translating my thought is kind of hard...

We understand your thoughts, but they're wrong. If an object is accelerating towards you or you're accelerating towards an object, it doesn't make a difference. You both feel the weight of each other.

Ok so, sorry I'm just a duchebag
My mind representation of what I described must me false... In the real world I mean.

I still don't understand why Tom is uncapable to admit that we can feel us falling when we, well... fall, without immediatly thinking about gravitons or anything sub-atomic.
Tom, you say you see the Earth coming to you, and you then think acceleration. Then, you don't argue on what is actually "pushing" the Earth. Why can't you admit that someone can feel like he falls, then think gravity without be sure that there is gravitons. When we say that we fall we're not speaking about gravitons, but only about our feeling.

It's our feeling against your feeling, please admit that we CAN be correct on this specific point. Don't mind if something else make you believe anything else, but admit that on this specific point your opinion is not better.

'Gravity' and an accelerating Earth are locally indistinguishable to the senses. To say that when you step off a chair, you can tell you're moving towards the ground (and not the other way around) is nonsense, be you RE'er or FE'er.


All I can tell when I step off a chair is that while 'in the air', I feel no force affecting me. When I touch the ground, I feel a force affecting me. I can't see any magical pulling force with my eyes, but I can feel the pushing force of the Earth. Hence in this scenario there is direct sensorial evidence for the latter, but not the former.

Artex, perhaps this would help: http://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principe_d'équivalence

'Gravity' and an accelerating Earth are locally indistinguishable to the senses. To say that when you step off a chair, you can tell you're moving towards the ground (and not the other way around) is nonsense, be you RE'er or FE'er.


All I can tell when I step off a chair is that while 'in the air', I feel no force affecting me. When I touch the ground, I feel a force affecting me. I can't see any magical pulling force with my eyes, but I can feel the pushing force of the Earth. Hence in this scenario there is direct sensorial evidence for the latter, but not the former.

I reckon it would takes quite a leap of faith to move to the "earth is moving up towards me" theory. Children from a young age naturally believe they're falling to the Earth, because that is what our senses tell us (whether they're being deceived or not, this is where we naturally believe). You've just gone and twisted it around saying that since you can't find a reason as to why you're falling to the Earth, the Earth must be falling to you...

And your stance of not seeing puller particles thus you're not being pulled would hold at least a little ground IFF electromagnetism didn't exist. Empirical evidence of a phenomenon in which puller particles can't be seen yet there is still a pull shuts your theory down instantly.

'Gravity' and an accelerating Earth are locally indistinguishable to the senses. To say that when you step off a chair, you can tell you're moving towards the ground (and not the other way around) is nonsense, be you RE'er or FE'er.


All I can tell when I step off a chair is that while 'in the air', I feel no force affecting me. When I touch the ground, I feel a force affecting me. I can't see any magical pulling force with my eyes, but I can feel the pushing force of the Earth. Hence in this scenario there is direct sensorial evidence for the latter, but not the former.

I don't understand what's so hard about changing around a few phrases of that to make something like this:

All I can tell when I step off a chair is that while 'in the air', I feel no force affecting me. When I touch the ground, I feel a force affecting me. I can't see any magical pulling pushing force with my eyes, but I can feel the pushing pulling force of the Earth. Hence in this scenario there is direct sensorial evidence for the latter, but not the former.

Therein lies "direct sensorial evidence" for gravity, but not "UA".

The difference is that you don't feel any 'pull' while in the air, which is what you would expect to feel if you were being pulled. Yet your feet will still make contact with the Earth, at which point you will feel its force.


The only logical conclusion given such direct sensorial evidence is that the Earth moves toward us, and not the other way around.

The difference is that you don't feel any 'pull' while in the air, which is what you would expect to feel if you were being pulled.

Exactly. If you can't feel it, it doesn't mean it's not happening. As you've already said, they're locally indistinguishable, so why the hell are you saying UA holds more ground? And if its because of those invisible puller particles, well... magnetism.

The difference is that you don't feel any 'pull' while in the air, which is what you would expect to feel if you were being pulled. Yet your feet will still make contact with the Earth, at which point you will feel its force.


The only logical conclusion given such direct sensorial evidence is that the Earth moves toward us, and not the other way around.

We do feel the pull. It's called acceleration. The detection of acceleration is one of our basic senses. And it's direct. You aren't making sense. There is NO difference between the Earth going up, and everything else going down.

EDIT: The name of the sense is the kinesthetic sense, according to God (Wikipedia).

The difference is that you don't feel any 'pull' while in the air, which is what you would expect to feel if you were being pulled. Yet your feet will still make contact with the Earth, at which point you will feel its force.


The only logical conclusion given such direct sensorial evidence is that the Earth moves toward us, and not the other way around.

But according to what I see, I go from a high point to a lower point. That sounds like falling to me.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 21, 2011, 06:11:58 PM

The difference is that you don't feel any 'pull' while in the air, which is what you would expect to feel if you were being pulled. Yet your feet will still make contact with the Earth, at which point you will feel its force.


The only logical conclusion given such direct sensorial evidence is that the Earth moves toward us, and not the other way around.

We do feel the pull. It's called acceleration. The detection of acceleration is one of our basic senses. And it's direct. You aren't making sense. There is NO difference between the Earth going up, and everything else going down.

Oh please no, Wilmore is just going to feed off of this wrong post and completely ignore the rest of them...

You can't feel acceleration, you can only feel the force of contact between you and let's say, the car seat. What your stomach feels when you're falling is a lack of this contact force.