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

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.

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.

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].

Well I could say the important fact in FE is that UA exists.

What's the difference?

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.

I just jumped. The earth accelerated at 9.81m/s² up into me. My experiment is complete. UA exists.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

Are you saying John Davis is a visionary and indeed the only person on earth, who does or has ever known its true form?

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.

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.

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?

Gravity certainly isn't a matter of fact.

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?"

So, its not just FErs that can't agree on fundamental parts of their theory?

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.

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?

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?

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.

As mentioned in this thread, the big bang is contested.

Hey guess what? Some FE'rs believe in the big bang!

[/thread]

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.

RE WIN!

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.

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.

Quote from: Thork 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.

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?

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 02, 2011, 06:09:49 AM

Quote from: Thork 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.

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?

Quote from: Hazbollah on October 02, 2011, 07:23:15 AM

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 02, 2011, 06:09:49 AM

Quote from: Thork 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.

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.

You're probably going to get banned (or at least warned) for bandwidth reasons. Nice ducks, though!