Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?

  • 59 Replies
  • 6110 Views
?

Thork

Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #30 on: September 15, 2011, 04:06:35 AM »
Not being able to agree on what causes gravity is a basic part of the theory. As there is as much evidence for 'magic' as there is 'Higgs god-particle', you round earthers cannot claim to have solved even basic concepts. And as Higgs and Hawking are having a public tiff, you cannot say they all have a consensus. There are definitely doubts in your ranks.

Quote from: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/11/higgs_v_hawking_boffinry_deathmatch/
Famous retired physics prof Peter Higgs - of boson renown - has stingingly counter-poohpoohed the theories of his equally well known Nobel Prize rival, Stephen Hawking, who has already poohpoohed Higgs' particle concept. The clash of intellects is expected to be settled by particle-punishment results at the Large Hadron Collider.

Your argument holds no water.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 04:08:45 AM by Thork »

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #31 on: September 15, 2011, 04:10:58 AM »
Not being able to agree on what causes gravity is a basic part of the theory. As there is as much evidence for 'magic' as there is 'Higgs god-particle', you round earthers cannot claim to have solved even basic concepts. And as Higgs and Hawking are having a public tiff, you cannot say they all have a consensus. There are definitely doubts in your ranks.

Quote from: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/11/higgs_v_hawking_boffinry_deathmatch/
Famous retired physics prof Peter Higgs - of boson renown - has stingingly counter-poohpoohed the theories of his equally well known Nobel Prize rival, Stephen Hawking, who has already poohpoohed Higgs' particle concept. The clash of intellects is expected to be settled by particle-punishment results at the Large Hadron Collider.

Your argument holds no water.
Why do keep copy-pasting the same argument over and over again? We have told you, the important fact in RET is that gravity exists, not that is caused by [Insert theory here].
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

?

Thork

Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #32 on: September 15, 2011, 04:13:09 AM »
Well I could say the important fact in FE is that UA exists.

What's the difference?

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #33 on: September 15, 2011, 04:19:15 AM »
Well I could say the important fact in FE is that UA exists.

What's the difference?
No one has ever conducted an experiment to prove UA exists.
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

?

Thork

Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #34 on: September 15, 2011, 04:20:47 AM »
I just jumped. The earth accelerated at 9.81m/s2 up into me. My experiment is complete. UA exists.

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #35 on: September 15, 2011, 04:32:41 AM »
Oh sorry Thork, I meant to say

No one has ever conducted an experiment to prove UA exists whose results cannot be easily explained by gravity.
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

?

Thork

Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #36 on: September 15, 2011, 04:40:37 AM »
Gravity? You mean that made up concept that explains why stuff falls? The same concept that cannot be explained? The same concept that has leading scientists arguing like children? That gravity?






Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #37 on: September 15, 2011, 04:48:10 AM »
Well I could say the important fact in FE is that UA exists.

What's the difference?
You could say that but you would be wrong. The John Davis model says gravity is real.

?

Thork

Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #38 on: September 15, 2011, 05:29:12 AM »
The John Davis model? The model John Davis supports and all the other FErs don't? Why is he correct and the rest all wrong?

Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #39 on: September 15, 2011, 05:42:26 AM »
The John Davis model? The model John Davis supports and all the other FErs don't? Why is he correct and the rest all wrong?

Why are all the rest correct and he is wrong?

?

Thork

Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #40 on: September 15, 2011, 05:44:40 AM »
Are you saying John Davis is a visionary and indeed the only person on earth, who does or has ever known its true form?

Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #41 on: September 15, 2011, 06:32:35 AM »
The John Davis model? The model John Davis supports and all the other FErs don't? Why is he correct and the rest all wrong?
If you are going to go with the majority is right then FE is false.

?

Thork

Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #42 on: September 15, 2011, 06:39:31 AM »
We all agree with John that earth is flat. But gravity has not shown itself to be superior to UA as a theory. It is because I believe it to be inferior, that I do not subscribe to it.

RErs are stuck with gravity. I got to choose. Gravity seems silly. It lost.

Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #43 on: September 15, 2011, 09:42:21 AM »
We all agree with John that earth is flat. But gravity has not shown itself to be superior to UA as a theory. It is because I believe it to be inferior, that I do not subscribe to it.

RErs are stuck with gravity. I got to choose. Gravity seems silly. It lost.

So it's just a matter of opinion?

?

Thork

Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #44 on: September 15, 2011, 10:12:14 AM »
Gravity certainly isn't a matter of fact.

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #45 on: September 15, 2011, 12:19:55 PM »
Gravity certainly isn't a matter of fact.
More so than UA. Just as you can reduce what causes gravity to magic, I can reduce what causes UA to be magic.

"Of course there's a giant thing of Dark energy under the earth! Isn't it so obvious?"
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

?

Thork

Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #46 on: September 15, 2011, 12:31:36 PM »
So, its not just FErs that can't agree on fundamental parts of their theory?

« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 12:36:59 PM by Thork »

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #47 on: September 15, 2011, 12:34:16 PM »
So, its not just FEr's that can't agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
I wasn't talking about anybody agreeing on anything. I'm just saying it is extremely hypocritical of you to dismiss gravity as magic and praise UA as if it actually had any proof behind it.
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

?

Thork

Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #48 on: September 15, 2011, 12:37:59 PM »
My point is that the thread criticises FErs for not agreeing on fundamental parts of their theory. I have illustrated this is no different to RET using a gravity/UA example, would you not agree?

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #49 on: September 15, 2011, 12:49:13 PM »
My point is that the thread criticises FErs for not agreeing on fundamental parts of their theory. I have illustrated this is no different to RET using a gravity/UA example, would you not agree?
Gravity/UA is only one example, and it is a debatable one at best. Do you have any other instances of RE disagreement over basic parts of RET?
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

?

Thork

Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #50 on: September 15, 2011, 12:57:21 PM »
As mentioned in this thread, the big bang is contested.

So, being as you have agreed that RErs can't agree on fundamental parts of their theory, this thread has been answered and I am happy that FE is again not inferior to RET in any way.

[/thread]
bye.

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #51 on: September 15, 2011, 01:27:25 PM »
As mentioned in this thread, the big bang is contested.
Hey guess what? Some FE'rs believe in the big bang!

[/thread]
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #52 on: September 15, 2011, 06:05:19 PM »
The Big Bang has nothing to do with RET they aren't mutually inclusive so basically grouping RET with modern experimentally proven physics. So you just conceded that every leading expert is on our side. If you aren't grouping the two then your Big Band argument is irrelevant.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 06:46:13 PM by Earthslayer »

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #53 on: September 16, 2011, 04:36:11 AM »
RE WIN!
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #54 on: September 16, 2011, 04:58:13 AM »
My point is that the thread criticises FErs for not agreeing on fundamental parts of their theory. I have illustrated this is no different to RET using a gravity/UA example, would you not agree?
No, I wouldn't, and I have already explained why.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #55 on: October 02, 2011, 06:09:49 AM »
I just jumped. The earth accelerated at 9.81m/s2 up into me. My experiment is complete. UA exists.
Oh dear, looks like in one part of the world you accelerate at that speed, and somewhere else slightly faster, and somewhere else slightly slower. Explain that while I giggle at your feeble trolling.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

Hazbollah

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2444
  • Earth Shape Apathetic.
Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #56 on: October 02, 2011, 07:23:15 AM »
I just jumped. The earth accelerated at 9.81m/s2 up into me. My experiment is complete. UA exists.
Oh dear, looks like in one part of the world you accelerate at that speed, and somewhere else slightly faster, and somewhere else slightly slower. Explain that while I giggle at your feeble trolling.
I suppose you've done this, then?
Always check your tackle- Caerphilly school of Health. If I see an innuendo in my post, I'll be sure to whip it out.

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #57 on: October 02, 2011, 07:25:59 AM »
I just jumped. The earth accelerated at 9.81m/s2 up into me. My experiment is complete. UA exists.
Oh dear, looks like in one part of the world you accelerate at that speed, and somewhere else slightly faster, and somewhere else slightly slower. Explain that while I giggle at your feeble trolling.
I suppose you've done this, then?
What, giggle at Thork's trolling?
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #58 on: October 04, 2011, 07:14:08 AM »
I just jumped. The earth accelerated at 9.81m/s2 up into me. My experiment is complete. UA exists.
Oh dear, looks like in one part of the world you accelerate at that speed, and somewhere else slightly faster, and somewhere else slightly slower. Explain that while I giggle at your feeble trolling.
I suppose you've done this, then?
What, giggle at Thork's trolling?

He's almost as funny as that James fella.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
« Reply #59 on: October 10, 2011, 05:26:28 PM »
You're probably going to get banned (or at least warned) for bandwidth reasons. Nice ducks, though!