Proper Nomenclature

Hearing you guys call your idea "Flat Earth Theory" is like nails on a chalkboard to those of us who are scientifically literate. A theory is something that is backed up by experimentation and observation. Your flat earth "theory" is actually a hypothesis. You never test your claims, and there is no 21st century observational evidence to back up your claim that should have been left in the middle ages. Hell, since there is so much evidence against the earth being flat, we might as well call it "Flat Earth Faith," or "Flat Earth Religion."

Hearing you guys call your idea "Flat Earth Theory" is like nails on a chalkboard to those of us who are scientifically literate.

Do you learn to be condescending when you start being 'scientifically literate' or where you born with it?

You never test your claims

We do

and there is no 21st century observational evidence to back up your claim that should have been left in the middle ages.

There is.

Hell, since there is so much evidence against the earth being flat, we might as well call it "Flat Earth Faith," or "Flat Earth Religion."

There isn't.

I'm an undergraduate science major at a well known university.
You don't test your claims, I've never seen any post where you have tested any of your ridiculous half-assed claims.
There isn't any observational evidence. Every scrap of "evidence" is easily torn apart by logic and mathematics.
There is an exceptional amount of evidence against the earth being flat. You guys just ignore all the evidence.

Quote from: Daniel39363 on December 09, 2012, 04:46:29 PM

I'm an undergraduate science major at a well known university.
You don't test your claims, I've never seen any post where you have tested any of your ridiculous half-assed claims.
There isn't any observational evidence. Every scrap of "evidence" is easily torn apart by logic and mathematics.
There is an exceptional amount of evidence against the earth being flat. You guys just ignore all the evidence.

I'm not a flat Earth theorist but there does appear to be evidence done on lakes that show no curvature of the Earth.

Can you cite it? I'd like to look at it.

I'm an undergraduate science major at a well known university.

So impressive 

I'm an undergraduate science major at a well known university.

Irrelevant. There are multiple people on these forums who are both FE'ers and more educated than you.

You don't test your claims, I've never seen any post where you have tested any of your ridiculous half-assed claims.

You sure do make a lot of assumptions. Is that what they're teaching students to do at universities now?

There isn't any observational evidence. Every scrap of "evidence" is easily torn apart by logic and mathematics.

More assumptions. Joy.

There is an exceptional amount of evidence against the earth being flat. You guys just ignore all the evidence.

The first sentence is incorrect, the second one is just ironic.

All you guys do is cite the Bedford Levels experiment, which was found to be flawed. What amazes me is that you believe this account, without having actually observed it for yourself, but every experiment or scrap of evidence toward a round earth, you dismiss on the spot. Is this flat earth thing tied to Christianity or some other religion? Do you guys accept the theory of evolution?
Also I wasn't trying to impress you with what I'm doing in school, I was just telling you why I consider myself to be scientifically literate.

Do you guys accept the theory of evolution?

Of course!

All you guys do is cite the Bedford Levels experiment, which was found to be flawed. What amazes me is that you believe this account, without having actually observed it for yourself, but every experiment or scrap of evidence toward a round earth, you dismiss on the spot.

Members of the society have also posted photographs showing the perspective effect and more.

Is this flat earth thing tied to Christianity or some other religion? Do you guys accept the theory of evolution?
Also I wasn't trying to impress you with what I'm doing in school, I was just telling you why I consider myself to be scientifically literate.

For a minority of the members there are ties to Christianity, but to the majority of us we have come to this conclusion due to the vast amount of scientific evidence that supports it.

I also whole-heartedly support the theory of evolution.

All you guys do is cite the Bedford Levels experiment, which was found to be flawed. What amazes me is that you believe this account, without having actually observed it for yourself, but every experiment or scrap of evidence toward a round earth, you dismiss on the spot. Is this flat earth thing tied to Christianity or some other religion? Do you guys accept the theory of evolution?
Also I wasn't trying to impress you with what I'm doing in school, I was just telling you why I consider myself to be scientifically literate.

The Bedford Level experiment was never found to be flawed. Also, FET is secular. You're thinking of RET, RET is the one that is tied to both the Catholic Church and Greek religion. If it weren't for multiple religions having their hand in the pie, no one would believe in a spherical world.

All you guys do is cite the Bedford Levels experiment, which was found to be flawed.

How could they be flawed if they didn't happen?

You never test your claims

So I guess you now concede that we do in fact test our claims. I know this is implicit in your reply, but I thought it would be good to make it nice and explicit.

Quote from: Daniel39363 on December 09, 2012, 05:20:59 PM

All you guys do is cite the Bedford Levels experiment, which was found to be flawed.

How could they be flawed if they didn't happen?

Quote from: Daniel39363 on December 09, 2012, 04:02:54 PM

You never test your claims

So I guess you now concede that we do in fact test our claims. I know this is implicit in your reply, but I thought it would be good to make it nice and explicit.

You rely on some inconclusive experiment (mixed results were obtained by different people doing the experiment) as your sole source of experimental evidence. I hardly think that constitutes as you testing your claims.

You never test your claims

Emphasis mine.

Quote from: Daniel39363 on December 09, 2012, 04:02:54 PM

You never test your claims

Emphasis mine.

Your sentence contains two nouns and is incomprehensible.

Funny, I understand it when I read it in academic journals, news articles etc. Which means that the editors have almost certainly approved it, because most people understand it. Which doesn't really tally with the definition of "incomprehensible". Perhaps you should visit this link to get up to speed on this sort of thing.


Anyway, all that is beside the point. The real point is that having said we "never test our claims", several people here have directed you to a number of experiments which did in fact "test our claims". Which means you were wrong (even if you won't admit it).


Now, is there anything you'd like to retract before we move on to the rest of your claims?

Funny, I understand it when I read it in academic journals, news articles etc. Which means that the editors have almost certainly approved it, because most people understand it. Which doesn't really tally with the definition of "incomprehensible". Perhaps you should visit this link to get up to speed on this sort of thing.


Anyway, all that is beside the point. The real point is that having said we "never test our claims", several people here have directed you to a number of experiments which did in fact "test our claims". Which means you were wrong (even if you won't admit it).


Now, is there anything you'd like to retract before we move on to the rest of your claims?

I was linked to the same claim.

My link is different. Trust me.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 09, 2012, 07:30:33 PM

Quote from: Daniel39363 on December 09, 2012, 04:02:54 PM

You never test your claims

Emphasis mine.

Your sentence contains two nouns and is incomprehensible.

Wow that didn't take long to show that you're still in high school. I always wonder why people feel they need to lie about their education (especially saying you're a undergrad, it's not that special), as if that would make their silly round earth ideas more valid. Ah well.

He has a point. When was the last time experiments were made and documented. The Bedford level experiment is held in question.
To answer another point, yes the FES is mainly a religious group, it says as much on the membership. Most here are not Christians though. Also a fair few support FET for kicks, for reasons unknown. I'm sure you have heard of the type; life for them is so dull they have to act on the Internet to make them self feel like they have a sense of worth. It's particularly sad when they have 5000 posts and most are dedicated to living a lie. One such person on here has over 10,000 posts!
So with anything on the Internet take it with a pinch of salt. In my opinion the FES is more about keeping a theory alive than believing in it.

He has a point. When was the last time experiments were made and documented. The Bedford level experiment is held in question.
To answer another point, yes the FES is mainly a religious group, it says as much on the membership. Most here are not Christians though. Also a fair few support FET for kicks, for reasons unknown. I'm sure you have heard of the type; life for them is so dull they have to act on the Internet to make them self feel like they have a sense of worth. It's particularly sad when they have 5000 posts and most are dedicated to living a lie. One such person on here has over 10,000 posts!
So with anything on the Internet take it with a pinch of salt. In my opinion the FES is more about keeping a theory alive than believing in it.

Seems that way to me too. At first I thought the FES would have some interesting theories to support FE 'theory', something it would be good fun to debate. Then after a short time here I was convinced it was just an elaborate troll site. Now... it seems like a quaint, fun-in-a-silly-kinda-way idea that some feel there is a value in retaining. Like... morris dancing!

Also the lack of any real science and the utter reliance on just three things, 1- Rowbotham, 2 - the Bedford Level experiment, and 3 - The book 'The Earth Not a Globe' leads me to think that there is not much worth debating here with either the denialists or the bampot conspiracy theorists.

Quote from: Daniel39363 on December 09, 2012, 07:34:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 09, 2012, 07:30:33 PM

Quote from: Daniel39363 on December 09, 2012, 04:02:54 PM

You never test your claims

Emphasis mine.

Your sentence contains two nouns and is incomprehensible.

Wow that didn't take long to show that you're still in high school. I always wonder why people feel they need to lie about their education (especially saying you're a undergrad, it's not that special), as if that would make their silly round earth ideas more valid. Ah well.

I'm not still in high school you stupid fuck. I wouldn't lie about something like that. His sentence was clearly not understandable because it contained two nouns and no verb. God you people are stupid. You are the laughing stock of society because of how goddamn stupid you are. Christ, I'm done playing.

Quote from: Beorn on December 10, 2012, 01:11:56 AM

Quote from: Daniel39363 on December 09, 2012, 07:34:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 09, 2012, 07:30:33 PM

Quote from: Daniel39363 on December 09, 2012, 04:02:54 PM

You never test your claims

Emphasis mine.

Your sentence contains two nouns and is incomprehensible.

Wow that didn't take long to show that you're still in high school. I always wonder why people feel they need to lie about their education (especially saying you're a undergrad, it's not that special), as if that would make their silly round earth ideas more valid. Ah well.

I'm not still in high school you stupid fuck. I wouldn't lie about something like that. His sentence was clearly not understandable because it contained two nouns and no verb. God you people are stupid. You are the laughing stock of society because of how goddamn stupid you are. Christ, I'm done playing.

Guess what, genius. Not all sentences need verbs for them to be understandable.

"So far so good." is a perfect example of this.

Quote from: Daniel39363 on December 10, 2012, 07:18:33 AM

Quote from: Beorn on December 10, 2012, 01:11:56 AM

Quote from: Daniel39363 on December 09, 2012, 07:34:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 09, 2012, 07:30:33 PM

Quote from: Daniel39363 on December 09, 2012, 04:02:54 PM

You never test your claims

Emphasis mine.

Your sentence contains two nouns and is incomprehensible.

Wow that didn't take long to show that you're still in high school. I always wonder why people feel they need to lie about their education (especially saying you're a undergrad, it's not that special), as if that would make their silly round earth ideas more valid. Ah well.

I'm not still in high school you stupid fuck. I wouldn't lie about something like that. His sentence was clearly not understandable because it contained two nouns and no verb. God you people are stupid. You are the laughing stock of society because of how goddamn stupid you are. Christ, I'm done playing.

Guess what, genius. Not all sentences need verbs for them to be understandable.

"So far so good." is a perfect example of this.

Well his didn't work like that. I couldn't understand his 'sentence.'

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on December 10, 2012, 08:29:38 AM

Guess what, genius. Not all sentences need verbs for them to be understandable.

"So far so good." is a perfect example of this.

Well his didn't work like that. I couldn't understand his 'sentence.'

Then I suggest you gain some reading comprehension because his 'sentence' made sense and actually is used in scholarly works. It is funny, because a simple Google search of "emphasis mine" would have made you understand this. Do you treat everything that you do not initially understand as false?

Well his didn't work like that. I couldn't understand his 'sentence.'

Seriously?  You couldn't reasonably conclude that "emphasis mine" means that Wilmore added emphasis to the post that he quoted? 

Quote from: Daniel39363 on December 10, 2012, 08:56:12 AM

Well his didn't work like that. I couldn't understand his 'sentence.'

Seriously?  You couldn't reasonably conclude that "emphasis mine" means that Wilmore added emphasis to the post that he quoted? 

I honestly didn't conclude that. If he would have said "emphasizing mine" I would have understood what he said.

Quote from: markjo on December 10, 2012, 09:26:53 AM

Quote from: Daniel39363 on December 10, 2012, 08:56:12 AM

Well his didn't work like that. I couldn't understand his 'sentence.'

Seriously?  You couldn't reasonably conclude that "emphasis mine" means that Wilmore added emphasis to the post that he quoted? 

I honestly didn't conclude that. If he would have said "emphasizing mine" I would have understood what he said.

yet you cou.dn't have made the connection? Those are both effectively the same sentence. Both are nouns meaning very similar things.

So if he had said,

Quote from: Daniel39363 on December 09, 2012, 04:02:54 PM

You never test your claims

Italics mine.

you would have been equally confused? How about:

Quote from: Daniel39363 on December 09, 2012, 04:02:54 PM

You never test your claims

Emoticons mine.

You never test your claims

Mine mine