Hypocrisy of Rowboatham

Quote from: John Davis on July 12, 2011, 05:31:05 AM

 

I do no such thing to every astronaut, satellite engineer or Antarctic researcher. 

Lets imagine a thread on this forum...

Post 1: "Hi, Im Buzz Aldrin, I went to space and saw that the earth is round, then I walked on the moon. I can assure you from first hand experience that the earth is not flat.

Post 2 (by Davis or indeed any other flattist): "You are lying, you are part of the conspiracy and anything you say is false by definition."

The defence rests.

Incorrect.  I doubt he would be lying, that any conspiracy exists, or that anything he would say is false by definition.

Quote from: Skeleton on July 12, 2011, 11:30:27 AM

Quote from: John Davis on July 12, 2011, 05:31:05 AM

 

I do no such thing to every astronaut, satellite engineer or Antarctic researcher. 

Lets imagine a thread on this forum...

Post 1: "Hi, Im Buzz Aldrin, I went to space and saw that the earth is round, then I walked on the moon. I can assure you from first hand experience that the earth is not flat.

Post 2 (by Davis or indeed any other flattist): "You are lying, you are part of the conspiracy and anything you say is false by definition."

The defence rests.

Incorrect.  I doubt he would be lying, that any conspiracy exists, or that anything he would say is false by definition.

OK. Why do you not trust the first hand testimony of astronauts in the many books that they have written and TV and magazine interviews they have done then? Either you accept their accounts are truthful, or you accuse them of lying. There is no middle ground. You say you dont believe a conspiracy exists - well then how do you explain the findings of NASA, ESA, the Russian, Chinese and Indian space programmes and so on?

Nah, he just thinks they are 'mistaken' about the shape of the earth, and refuses to explain how someone could think they are in orbit around a round planet while actually being magically suspended above an infinite plane.

There no magic about it.  Empty space alters light.  Above the earth are aetheric eddies which happen in regular cycles (minor and major).  Satellites and those in orbit are likely caught up in these eddies.  The space medium causes the earth to appear round from sufficient heights (as well as the sun to set, ships to sink, etc.)  As far as the mathematical formulation for this, you'll have to wait until my book is finished in a few months.

But how could they remain suspended above the earth for extended periods of time without producing enough thrust to counteract gravity (as satellites and the space station do every day)? Either all these are fake, or you must come up with a force to keep them up. Which is it, and where is the evidence?

Also, I thought you said August for your book?

Also, I thought you said August for your book?

Chill dude, the book is never gonna appear.

But how could they remain suspended above the earth for extended periods of time without producing enough thrust to counteract gravity (as satellites and the space station do every day)? Either all these are fake, or you must come up with a force to keep them up. Which is it, and where is the evidence?

Also, I thought you said August for your book?

A bit ago I pushed it to September due to the birth of my child and the strain its causing on finishing my work on time.  Hopefully it will be done by then.  I will say this is a soft deadline as I still need to support myself, my child, and take care of him all day.  However, I feel its a reasonable one given the remaining work I have left and am fairly confident I can make it.

How do the planets stay aloft?  One of my many theories on this is that space is expanding between us and the heavens.  This would also account for why all the heavens seem to be (for the most part) moving away from us.

There no magic about it.  Empty space alters light.  Above the earth are aetheric eddies which happen in regular cycles (minor and major).  Satellites and those in orbit are likely caught up in these eddies.  The space medium causes the earth to appear round from sufficient heights (as well as the sun to set, ships to sink, etc.)  As far as the mathematical formulation for this, you'll have to wait until my book is finished in a few months.

Oh yes, the "a wizard did it" defence.

I had thought the defense had already rested?

I had thought the defense had already rested?

It has, you are ranting to a courtroom which has long ago found you guilty and passed sentence.

Quote from: John Davis on July 13, 2011, 05:40:29 PM

I had thought the defense had already rested?

It has, you are ranting to a courtroom which has long ago found you guilty and passed sentence.

In this analogy you would be the criminal...  or at least representing the criminal.

Quote from: Skeleton on July 14, 2011, 02:40:14 PM

Quote from: John Davis on July 13, 2011, 05:40:29 PM

I had thought the defense had already rested?

It has, you are ranting to a courtroom which has long ago found you guilty and passed sentence.

In this analogy you would be the criminal...  or at least representing the criminal.

I am not allowed to mention if posters are contributing non-content derailment posts.

Apologies.

However, the thread clearly had already begun to take that turn with the whole "zomg u thinx magicks duz it lolz".

No, there is nothing magic or wizardy about the space medium.

Apologies.

However, the thread clearly had already begun to take that turn with the whole "zomg u thinx magicks duz it lolz".

No, there is nothing magic or wizardy about the space medium.

Given that magic could be described as a method or force for which there is - by definition - no scientific explanation, then your atheric eddies really do fall into that category. You claim there is a scientific explanation of how it works, but as you are the only person in the cosmos who is privy to the information and will not share it, then until you do your space mediums are no better solution than magic. An explanation is when information is passed on from a source to a recipient to enable their understanding. I dont see any of that happening with your atheric stuff. I can only conclude that you dont want us to understand it ourselves, merely accept your word for it. So do you want me to withdraw my accusations of the "wizard did it" defence and change to the "it is written" defence, the one which is so beloved of Bob Bishop?

The "magic" double-standard is mind-boggling.

The "magic" double-standard is mind-boggling.

Indeed.  Its not magic when its the Big Bang, gravity, dark matter, or dark energy.

At least our side is working on it, and not keeping all research some huge secret like you are.

Quote from: Ski on July 15, 2011, 07:23:16 AM

The "magic" double-standard is mind-boggling.

Indeed.  Its not magic when its the Big Bang, gravity, dark matter, or dark energy.

Dont think you can accuse me of hypocrisy with these examples. For a start, the Big Bang has evidence supporting it in that the universe has been observed to be expanding. The Big Bang theory also predicted that there would be a background of microwave radiation coming from all directions - and it was several years after this prediction was made that Arnold and Penzias found it, completely by accident (just so you dont trot out the "they were expecting to find it so they found it" mantra that you accuse all proper scientists of).
As for dark matter and dark energy, they do absolutely fall into the "wizard did it" category in that there is no evidence for them apart from to artificially explain an observation. I dislike the dark matter theory intensely for this reason. It has no more evidence for it than things like the sub-moon, anti-moon or ice wall. I do not consider the assumption of dark matter/energy to be proper science for this reason. The fact that it needs to influence galaxies in a big way whilst remaining completely undetectable points to its non-existence.

And there is no double standard when it comes to proper science. Science says "this is what we know, and here are the reasons we think we know this, and this is what we admit we still dont understand" whereas the Davis Science Club says "This is what I know, but Im not going to tell you how I know it, and it explains everything."

Quote from: Ski on July 15, 2011, 07:23:16 AM

The "magic" double-standard is mind-boggling.

Indeed.  Its not magic when its the Big Bang, gravity, dark matter, or dark energy.

None of that matters for the shape of the Earth now does it?  Eratosthenes figured it out without the need of the Big Bang, gravity, dark matter, or dark energy.

Berny
Magic is magic like troll is troll
 

Quote from: John Davis on July 15, 2011, 10:11:10 AM

Quote from: Ski on July 15, 2011, 07:23:16 AM

The "magic" double-standard is mind-boggling.

Indeed.  Its not magic when its the Big Bang, gravity, dark matter, or dark energy.

None of that matters for the shape of the Earth now does it?  Eratosthenes figured it out without the need of the Big Bang, gravity, dark matter, or dark energy.

Berny
Magic is magic like troll is troll

Eratosthenese didn't "figure out" the earth's shape. His shadow experiment calculations on the earth's circumference and the distance to the sun operate under the premise that the earth is a sphere. Assuming that the earth is flat gives different interpretations of his shadow experiment.

At least our side is working on it, and not keeping all research some huge secret like you are.

You clearly misunderstand how "your side" works.  Its quite common not to release ones work before they.. well..  release it / publish it.  I don't see how this is hard to see or not painfully obvious.

Quote from: John Davis on July 15, 2011, 10:11:10 AM

Quote from: Ski on July 15, 2011, 07:23:16 AM

The "magic" double-standard is mind-boggling.

Indeed.  Its not magic when its the Big Bang, gravity, dark matter, or dark energy.

Dont think you can accuse me of hypocrisy with these examples. For a start, the Big Bang has evidence supporting it in that the universe has been observed to be expanding.

No it hasn't.

The Big Bang theory also predicted that there would be a background of microwave radiation coming from all directions - and it was several years after this prediction was made that Arnold and Penzias found it, completely by accident (just so you dont trot out the "they were expecting to find it so they found it" mantra that you accuse all proper scientists of).

Where have I ever said that so called "mantra"?  Don't you tire of your  baseless personal attacks and putting words into my mouth?  Good job, predicted there was background radiation.  Just like all the other competing theories.

As for dark matter and dark energy, they do absolutely fall into the "wizard did it" category in that there is no evidence for them apart from to artificially explain an observation. I dislike the dark matter theory intensely for this reason. It has no more evidence for it than things like the sub-moon, anti-moon or ice wall. I do not consider the assumption of dark matter/energy to be proper science for this reason. The fact that it needs to influence galaxies in a big way whilst remaining completely undetectable points to its non-existence.

Thank you for being honest in this matter.

And there is no double standard when it comes to proper science. Science says "this is what we know, and here are the reasons we think we know this, and this is what we admit we still dont understand" whereas the Davis Science Club says "This is what I know, but Im not going to tell you how I know it, and it explains everything."

Incorrect.

Quote from: General Disarray on July 15, 2011, 10:26:02 AM

At least our side is working on it, and not keeping all research some huge secret like you are.

You clearly misunderstand how "your side" works.  Its quite common not to release ones work before they.. well..  release it / publish it.  I don't see how this is hard to see or not painfully obvious.

Quote from: Skeleton on July 15, 2011, 10:38:10 AM

Quote from: John Davis on July 15, 2011, 10:11:10 AM

Quote from: Ski on July 15, 2011, 07:23:16 AM

The "magic" double-standard is mind-boggling.

Indeed.  Its not magic when its the Big Bang, gravity, dark matter, or dark energy.

Dont think you can accuse me of hypocrisy with these examples. For a start, the Big Bang has evidence supporting it in that the universe has been observed to be expanding.

No it hasn't.

Quote

The Big Bang theory also predicted that there would be a background of microwave radiation coming from all directions - and it was several years after this prediction was made that Arnold and Penzias found it, completely by accident (just so you dont trot out the "they were expecting to find it so they found it" mantra that you accuse all proper scientists of).

Where have I ever said that so called "mantra"?  Don't you tire of your  baseless personal attacks and putting words into my mouth?  Good job, predicted there was background radiation.  Just like all the other competing theories.

Quote

As for dark matter and dark energy, they do absolutely fall into the "wizard did it" category in that there is no evidence for them apart from to artificially explain an observation. I dislike the dark matter theory intensely for this reason. It has no more evidence for it than things like the sub-moon, anti-moon or ice wall. I do not consider the assumption of dark matter/energy to be proper science for this reason. The fact that it needs to influence galaxies in a big way whilst remaining completely undetectable points to its non-existence.

Thank you for being honest in this matter.

Quote

And there is no double standard when it comes to proper science. Science says "this is what we know, and here are the reasons we think we know this, and this is what we admit we still dont understand" whereas the Davis Science Club says "This is what I know, but Im not going to tell you how I know it, and it explains everything."

Incorrect.

Big Bang theory: yes, there is evidence for it, I described what it was, you included some in the quote. Denying it wont make you look less silly. Feel free to explain how the evidence for the Big Bang is not evidence, if you wish. Refusal to do this will be seen as a concession that the evidence IS evidence.
Mantra: this is aimed at Thork, who always turns up to slag me off at some point and consistently accuses scientists of only seeing what is expected. It is not aimed at John Davis.
Davis Science Club: my description of your methods is not incorrect, it is a spot on accurate summary of your strategy of pinning everything on a wizard atheric eddies. Atheric eddies is what you know, you wont tell us how you know it, and you say it explains everything that FET currently falls down on with regard to light rays. I think Im pretty precise, there.