How the hell do you idiots actually believe the world is flat? Can you prove it?

A major factor in this dilemma we are all facing is Money. It would not have been possible without Money because Money is the Middleman and we all know that when you use a Middleman things can get complicated.

Here's the thing. The Bible says "Those who make them will be like them, and so will all who trust in them." Psalm 115:8

This means that when you Worship an Idol (A Created Thing) then you Will become like that Idol meaningless, thoughtless, dead etc.

People worship money so they become like it: a means to an end, disposable, fake so they begin to lie to get what they want a.k.a. Marketing.

Marketing is why we are all fooled. We believe what we are told and we are being sold a lie. Because why would you need to sell something to begin with? If I needed it and wanted it wouldn't I buy it? It's like a snake slithering into to devour its prey. You can trust me, I won't do anything... until it's too late.

Generalities, generalities...

As if money and religion weren't closely intricated.

A major factor in this dilemma we are all facing is Money. It would not have been possible without Money because Money is the Middleman and we all know that when you use a Middleman things can get complicated.

Here's the thing. The Bible says "Those who make them will be like them, and so will all who trust in them." Psalm 115:8

This means that when you Worship an Idol (A Created Thing) then you Will become like that Idol meaningless, thoughtless, dead etc.

People worship money so they become like it: a means to an end, disposable, fake so they begin to lie to get what they want a.k.a. Marketing.

Marketing is why we are all fooled. We believe what we are told and we are being sold a lie. Because why would you need to sell something to begin with? If I needed it and wanted it wouldn't I buy it? It's like a snake slithering into to devour its prey. You can trust me, I won't do anything... until it's too late.

I am rather confused as to how that is relevant.

Whether or not GM and/or QM are mainstream.
Or rather, you are trying to get him to say that they are, in which you will probably twist it around into a way he did not mean.
But, as he had put it; Why would someone to whom this does not apply care to think of it?
One might have heard of it, but to know is different.

I'm not trying to twist it into anything. markjo is arguing that a particle physicist wouldn't consider GR mainstream, because he doesn't use it when he's 'doing' particle physics. But that's nonsense. After all, I think GR is a mainstream scientific theory, even though I don't use it in day to day life. It's really famous, very well known, and generally considered extremely significant. So I still don't understand the point you're trying to make.

Quote from: Graff on March 26, 2012, 09:07:55 PM

Whether or not GM and/or QM are mainstream.
Or rather, you are trying to get him to say that they are, in which you will probably twist it around into a way he did not mean.
But, as he had put it; Why would someone to whom this does not apply care to think of it?
One might have heard of it, but to know is different.

I'm not trying to twist it into anything. markjo is arguing that a particle physicist wouldn't consider GR mainstream, because he doesn't use it when he's 'doing' particle physics. But that's nonsense. After all, I think GR is a mainstream scientific theory, even though I don't use it in day to day life. It's really famous, very well known, and generally considered extremely significant. So I still don't understand the point you're trying to make.

If you aren't going to twist it around, then he'd probably agree with you. GR and/or QM are mainstream theories. But considering how big of a deal you've made that, I highly doubt it. Going by past actions, you are in fact setting a trap.

I don't think you've actually read the thread properly. I was simply contradicting the OP by pointing out that John's model is based on precisely the same concept of gravitation due to mass as RET. markjo took issue with this response, claiming it wasn't FET, by which he meant mainstream FET. I'm not leading markjo anywhere; this is a hole he's dug for himself.

I don't think you've actually read the thread properly. I was simply contradicting the OP by pointing out that John's model is based on precisely the same concept of gravitation due to mass as RET. markjo took issue with this response, claiming it wasn't FET, by which he meant mainstream FET. I'm not leading markjo anywhere; this is a hole he's dug for himself.

But isn't it not a generally accepted theory? And wasn't that the point he was trying to make?

But what does "generally accepted" mean? And why does it matter? John's theory is well-known, has supporters, has been given international press coverage, and is included in the FAQ. And it contends that the Earth is flat, and that gravitation is linked to mass. The OP is wrong.

Quote from: markjo on March 24, 2012, 12:06:51 PM

That depends on whether you're talking to a particle physicist or to an astrophysicist.  Both theories are very successful within their respective realms.

But only one of these two mutually incompatible theories can be mainstream, right? Oh, you're saying that's not the case? Good, glad we sorted that out.

Most of my professors believe that we are missing an understanding that would bridge the two theories.  They seem incompatible because we are lacking in understanding.

Most of my professors believe that we are missing an understanding that would bridge the two theories.  They seem incompatible because we are lacking in understanding.

I'm aware of this, but it doesn't mean they're not mainstream theories.


And I still don't understand why a model has to be "mainstream" to be considered part of FET. Neither of markjo's arguments makes any sense.

But what does "generally accepted" mean? And why does it matter? John's theory is well-known, has supporters, has been given international press coverage, and is included in the FAQ. And it contends that the Earth is flat, and that gravitation is linked to mass. The OP is wrong.

Hollow earth theory is well known, has supporters and has had international press coverage.  I don't know of anyone who would consider hollow earth theory to be mainstream. 

The mainstream the predominant movement or idea. In particle physics, QM is mainstream.  In astrophysics, GR is mainstream.  In FET, UA is mainstream.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 27, 2012, 02:49:27 PM

But what does "generally accepted" mean? And why does it matter? John's theory is well-known, has supporters, has been given international press coverage, and is included in the FAQ. And it contends that the Earth is flat, and that gravitation is linked to mass. The OP is wrong.

Hollow earth theory is well known, has supporters and has had international press coverage.  I don't know of anyone who would consider hollow earth theory to be mainstream. 

The mainstream the predominant movement or idea. In particle physics, QM is mainstream.  In astrophysics, GR is mainstream.  In FET, UA is mainstream.

Unfortunately Markjo is correct. Mainstream is exclusive to mean the dominant opinion or trend. If Internet Explorer is mainstream, Firefox and Chrome by definition cannot be.

1. the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend: the mainstream of American culture.

2. a river having tributaries.

John's theories are heterodox. *people scrambling for dictionaries.

But Davis's model has got many supporters. I think it's more likely than the UA model. Rowbotham believed in an infinite earth. Because the UA supporters are more vocal doesn't make it mainstream.

The mainstream the predominant movement or idea. In particle physics, QM is mainstream.  In astrophysics, GR is mainstream.  In FET, UA is mainstream.

So who was mainstream, The Beatles or The Kinks? Who is the only mainstream author in the world? Which is the only mainstream religion in the world? Which of the two main political parties in the United States is the mainstream one?

Unfortunately Markjo is correct. Mainstream is exclusive to mean the dominant opinion or trend. If Internet Explorer is mainstream, Firefox and Chrome by definition cannot be.

Quote from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mainstream?s=t

1. the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend: the mainstream of American culture.

2. a river having tributaries.

John's theories are heterodox. *people scrambling for dictionaries.

No single thing is the mainstream, rather many things are part of the mainstream. For example, "the mainstream of American culture" contains quite a lot. To use the above definition to argue that only one thing can be mainstream is patently absurd.

Quote from: markjo on March 27, 2012, 08:38:25 PM

The mainstream the predominant movement or idea. In particle physics, QM is mainstream.  In astrophysics, GR is mainstream.  In FET, UA is mainstream.

So who was mainstream, The Beatles or The Kinks? Who is the only mainstream author in the world? Which is the only mainstream religion in the world? Which of the two main political parties in the United States is the mainstream one?

Mainstream means a trend.  You can ask "who was mainstream, the Beatles or the Kinks?" and the rest of your silly questions, but you know that they do not have anything thing to do with the actual definition of mainstream.