Do you ever have doubts?

About your stance on the shape of the Earth?  (I hope this is an appropriate 'Lounge' thread.  I didn't think it belonged in any of the others.)

This is not the place to discuss the shape of the earth. Take it upstairs, Roundling.

Oops. My bad.

Yes I do have doubts.  I think that is the point many FE'ers want to make.  Science tells us to question everything, yet we get laughed at by followers of science when we question the shape of the earth.

Yes I do have doubts.  I think that is the point many FE'ers want to make.  Science tells us to question everything, yet we get laughed at by followers of science when we question the shape of the earth.

Because you are claiming that a conspiracy is in place to hide the shape of the Earth. Need I say more?

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on July 22, 2012, 02:42:46 AM

Yes I do have doubts.  I think that is the point many FE'ers want to make.  Science tells us to question everything, yet we get laughed at by followers of science when we question the shape of the earth.

Because you are claiming that a conspiracy is in place to hide the shape of the Earth. Need I say more?

Actually we claim that they are mistaken.

To be completely blunt we lack the tools to Zetetically determine the true nature of the universe.

We can observe chunks of it - but without being able to view it through God's eyes we will never truely know.

To make assumptions about the true nature of the earth is to fall prisoner to the "twin demons of guesswork and speculation".(1)

A true Zeteticist, when asked what is the true shape of the earth - will reply 'We dont know'. 

1 - Discourse on the Zetetic Method - Lord Wilmore.

Being zetetic is cool and all, but you need to realize it is flawed. Put trust in those who work hard to discover the mysteries of the universe. There is no reason to doubt their expertise, but yet you do. Why?

Most of us have never seen a dodo bird, yet it existed. I can bet none of you have seen Antarctica yourself, yet it is there. Have any of you seen a semi submersible drug boat? Have any of you seen the green flash as the sun sets? Do the semi submersible boats exist, yes. Is there a slight green tint to the sun as it sets, yup.

Why is it so hard to believe in the people that have seen and done the things that you claim to be false? My chief is a square knot sailor, would you believe him if he told you that he witnessed a mermaid? I would, why would he lie? what is the evidence a mermaid does not exist? People claim to have seen them. Same thing with aliens.

Those are pretty far fetched claims, but people believe them. So if a scientist with a PhD from MIT did 20+ years of research in quantum physics and concluded that everything is made up of super tiny infinitely dense matter, and nothing ever really touches because it is just electrones pushing against each other with a horde of evidence to back up his claims, why would you doubt him? because with no evidence yourself to prove him wrong, how does that make him wrong? because you did not see this for yourself, it suddenly becomes untrue?

Do you see the flaw in your ways? I have said this before, but if I truly followed the zetetic way I would be living in a very boring small world. Luckily I do trust scientists and I have not heard or seen such hard evidence as to discredit them.

Being zetetic is cool and all, but you need to realize it is flawed. Put trust in those who work hard to discover the mysteries of the universe. There is no reason to doubt their expertise, but yet you do. Why?

Most of us have never seen a dodo bird, yet it existed. I can bet none of you have seen Antarctica yourself, yet it is there. Have any of you seen a semi submersible drug boat? Have any of you seen the green flash as the sun sets? Do the semi submersible boats exist, yes. Is there a slight green tint to the sun as it sets, yup.

The Zetetic Philosophy isn't "you have to see it to believe it" despite what some claim on this forum. The Zetetic Philosophy is actually based on a preponderance of evidence. It is based on empiricism and a collection of evidence. Rowbotham describes this very clearly in Chapter 1 of Earth Not a Globe.

I don't have to see dodo birds to know that they once existed. There is a preponderance of evidence which suggests that they once existed.

If, however, evidence appears suggesting that the dodo bird is a myth and that records of such a creature are a hoax, then there is reason to doubt that record.

In the case of NASA, there are many items of evidence which calls into question its honesty. Hence, we are compelled to doubt.

Thank you for your answers. I, too, believe in God and I don't think trying to understand the nature of the universe by compiling data is sinful. I believe we humans are humbled by the knowledge we ascertain. (I have not acted humble on these fora and i apologize for that but my place in the universe is a humble one.) The Zetetic philosophy makes sense to me though; but it is not one I ascribe to. Thanks again for the responses.

The Zetetic Philosophy isn't "you have to see it to believe it" despite what some claim on this forum. The Zetetic Philosophy is actually based on a preponderance of evidence. It is based on empiricism and a collection of evidence. Rowbotham describes this very clearly in Chapter 1 of Earth Not a Globe.

In addition to the collection of 'direct and practical evidence', being able 'to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstratable causes' is an essential part of the Zetetic process.

If the cause of phenomena is 'incapable of demonstration' then it is merely an assumption or a hypothesis - anti-Zetetic if you will.

So 'You have to be able to demonstrate it to know it' is a better way to describe the Zetetic Philosophy.

In the case of NASA, there are many items of evidence which calls into question its honesty. Hence, we are compelled to doubt.

Except that the Apollo missions have been verified by independent, third-party observers.

http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11
http://as.ua.edu/ay/keel/space/apollo.html
http://www.squidoo.com/apollo-moon-landing-photos-from-space

Of course I have doubts. What man in his right mind never encounters doubt. The only people I fear are those who never have doubts, to quote the poet. The ability to doubt is sacred.

of course nothing is ever 100%.
To think they way would be very non-zetetic.

Zetetics seek the truth, and while the wholte truth can never be attained, the Zetetic Method teaches us to get as close as we can.

Quote from: BoatswainsMate on July 22, 2012, 09:36:39 AM

Being zetetic is cool and all, but you need to realize it is flawed. Put trust in those who work hard to discover the mysteries of the universe. There is no reason to doubt their expertise, but yet you do. Why?

Most of us have never seen a dodo bird, yet it existed. I can bet none of you have seen Antarctica yourself, yet it is there. Have any of you seen a semi submersible drug boat? Have any of you seen the green flash as the sun sets? Do the semi submersible boats exist, yes. Is there a slight green tint to the sun as it sets, yup.

The Zetetic Philosophy isn't "you have to see it to believe it" despite what some claim on this forum. The Zetetic Philosophy is actually based on a preponderance of evidence. It is based on empiricism and a collection of evidence. Rowbotham describes this very clearly in Chapter 1 of Earth Not a Globe.

I don't have to see dodo birds to know that they once existed. There is a preponderance of evidence which suggests that they once existed.

If, however, evidence appears suggesting that the dodo bird is a myth and that records of such a creature are a hoax, then there is reason to doubt that record.

In the case of NASA, there are many items of evidence which calls into question its honesty. Hence, we are compelled to doubt.

So how does that differ to the scientific method?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 22, 2012, 10:04:41 AM

Quote from: BoatswainsMate on July 22, 2012, 09:36:39 AM

Being zetetic is cool and all, but you need to realize it is flawed. Put trust in those who work hard to discover the mysteries of the universe. There is no reason to doubt their expertise, but yet you do. Why?

Most of us have never seen a dodo bird, yet it existed. I can bet none of you have seen Antarctica yourself, yet it is there. Have any of you seen a semi submersible drug boat? Have any of you seen the green flash as the sun sets? Do the semi submersible boats exist, yes. Is there a slight green tint to the sun as it sets, yup.

The Zetetic Philosophy isn't "you have to see it to believe it" despite what some claim on this forum. The Zetetic Philosophy is actually based on a preponderance of evidence. It is based on empiricism and a collection of evidence. Rowbotham describes this very clearly in Chapter 1 of Earth Not a Globe.

I don't have to see dodo birds to know that they once existed. There is a preponderance of evidence which suggests that they once existed.

If, however, evidence appears suggesting that the dodo bird is a myth and that records of such a creature are a hoax, then there is reason to doubt that record.

In the case of NASA, there are many items of evidence which calls into question its honesty. Hence, we are compelled to doubt.

So how does that differ to the scientific method?

Your question is answered in Chapter 1 of Earth Not a Globe: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on July 22, 2012, 01:15:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 22, 2012, 10:04:41 AM

Quote from: BoatswainsMate on July 22, 2012, 09:36:39 AM

Being zetetic is cool and all, but you need to realize it is flawed. Put trust in those who work hard to discover the mysteries of the universe. There is no reason to doubt their expertise, but yet you do. Why?

Most of us have never seen a dodo bird, yet it existed. I can bet none of you have seen Antarctica yourself, yet it is there. Have any of you seen a semi submersible drug boat? Have any of you seen the green flash as the sun sets? Do the semi submersible boats exist, yes. Is there a slight green tint to the sun as it sets, yup.

The Zetetic Philosophy isn't "you have to see it to believe it" despite what some claim on this forum. The Zetetic Philosophy is actually based on a preponderance of evidence. It is based on empiricism and a collection of evidence. Rowbotham describes this very clearly in Chapter 1 of Earth Not a Globe.

I don't have to see dodo birds to know that they once existed. There is a preponderance of evidence which suggests that they once existed.

If, however, evidence appears suggesting that the dodo bird is a myth and that records of such a creature are a hoax, then there is reason to doubt that record.

In the case of NASA, there are many items of evidence which calls into question its honesty. Hence, we are compelled to doubt.

So how does that differ to the scientific method?

Your question is answered in Chapter 1 of Earth Not a Globe: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm

I think the first paragraph contradicts what you're saying

THE term Zetetic is derived from the Greek verb Zeteo; which means to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes.

How does this fit into what you said?

I don't have to see dodo birds to know that they once existed. There is a preponderance of evidence which suggests that they once existed.

I've seeked and examined the evidence to conclude that dodo birds once existed.

I did not merely hypothesize their existence, as astronomers are oft to do with their subject matter.

I've seeked and examined the evidence to conclude that dodo birds once existed.

I did not merely hypothesize their existence, as astronomers are oft to do with their subject matter.

Well Tom, a Dodo bird lived on Earth. Pretty easy to conclude that it existed. An astronomer studies celestial bodies not on Earth.

So if an astronomer is studying and calculating the directional path of a comet hei s really just making that up right? everything those damn astronomers tell you is a lie, they sit and play pong and astroid all day long laughing at us stupid folk who give them our taxpayer money.

The world you live in Tom must be pretty bleak. I feel bad for you. Just don't tell me you are one of those folk who has a bomb shelter loaded with semi automatic rifles and handguns waiting for the uprising to happen.

Astronomers observe and interpret under their framework. An astronomer might hypothesize that a comet is traveling at hundreds of thousands of miles an hour based on his tracking it across the sky and under current theory of the solar system's scale, but it is all just hypothesis and little else.

Funny how they are so good at predicting when a comet will come close to earth, meteor showers, planet movements, eclipses. All hypothetical

the zetetic method in most cases are trawling the internet for data. mostly about nasa conspiracies and other wild theories.
tom you take the word of those who support fet because to you that is right. you are worse than any scientist and you are akin to a religious person. you will always scream lalalala in the bare face of direct evidence because if it doesnt match your theory/belief then it must not be true. i would soon shout devils advocate, but i really do think you are a crazy man who sufs the internet looking for conspiracy data in your spare time and soaking it all up and worse still believing in it.

i dont have doubts but the concept is interesting but a little flawed still.

Isn't there some saying about how if all you do is look at one aspect of something then suddenly any other aspect becomes invisible to you? Or something like that. I probably butchered the real saying.

Funny how they are so good at predicting when a comet will come close to earth, meteor showers, planet movements, eclipses. All hypothetical

Those are all pattern-based phenomena. The eclipses, for example, come at a regular schedule. A record of past events can be used to predict the next one. This is how Aristotle predicted events in the heavens, and this is how they are predicted today.

Tom, all theories start with hypothesis. Then they are investigated. That's what astronomers do, is investigate. There is actually a lot of calculations behind the figures that they give the general public. Alot of the distance are measured by wavelengths of the light that is recieved from the target and whatnot, I am no expert on the subject, and most of the math is beyond me to be quite honest. But if one can make measurements like this on Earth, what is to stop it from being done with celestial bodies?

Those are all pattern-based phenomena. The eclipses, for example, come at a regular schedule. A record of past events can be used to predict the next one. This is how Aristotle predicted events in the heavens, and this is how they are predicted today.

You've said this before, and it isn't true.  I even showed you the calculations astronomers use to construct ephemerides.  Yes, there are some astronomical phenomena that occur in somewhat regular patterns.  There aren't many of those.  There is no pattern I can follow that will help me find Ceres with a telescope on any particular evening.  However, I can use Kepler's equations to tell me exactly (within 25") where in the sky to find it on any date I choose.

This textbook details the foundations of modern astronomy.  Chapters 9 and 13 show how to obtain various orbital elements, and chapter 10 shows how to use those elements to construct an ephemeris using Kepler's laws.  Whether or not you think those methods are valid, you have to admit that they exist, and they are not just counting games and tables.  The evidence is right in front of you.

If you want to learn to test these predictions yourself, the resources are available to you to learn to do it.

You've said this before, and it isn't true.  I even showed you the calculations astronomers use to construct ephemerides.  Yes, there are some astronomical phenomena that occur in somewhat regular patterns.  There aren't many of those.  There is no pattern I can follow that will help me find Ceres with a telescope on any particular evening.  However, I can use Kepler's equations to tell me exactly (within 25") where in the sky to find it on any date I choose.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or just naive. Man has charted the skies for thousands of years before Newton.

Kepler isn't Newton.

Quote from: garygreen on July 24, 2012, 09:12:36 AM

You've said this before, and it isn't true.  I even showed you the calculations astronomers use to construct ephemerides.  Yes, there are some astronomical phenomena that occur in somewhat regular patterns.  There aren't many of those.  There is no pattern I can follow that will help me find Ceres with a telescope on any particular evening.  However, I can use Kepler's equations to tell me exactly (within 25") where in the sky to find it on any date I choose.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or just naive. Man has charted the skies for thousands of years before Newton.

New comets are discovered all the time.  How does one determine when a newly discovered comet will return when that comet has no historical pattern to refer to?  How were the orbital periods of Neptune and Pluto determined when neither has made a full orbit since they were discovered?

Quote from: garygreen on July 24, 2012, 09:12:36 AM

You've said this before, and it isn't true.  I even showed you the calculations astronomers use to construct ephemerides.  Yes, there are some astronomical phenomena that occur in somewhat regular patterns.  There aren't many of those.  There is no pattern I can follow that will help me find Ceres with a telescope on any particular evening.  However, I can use Kepler's equations to tell me exactly (within 25") where in the sky to find it on any date I choose.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or just naive. Man has charted the skies for thousands of years before Newton.

I'm not sure I see the relevance.  We don't need or rely on those observations to calculate the motions of celestial objects.  To use Kepler's equations we need only a single set of orbital elements for an object at a given point in time to calculate the apparent location of that object for any date in the future.