« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all

  • 48 Replies
  • 9427 Views
?

EduardoVS-BR

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 431
  • I respect both theories.
There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« on: December 26, 2012, 03:50:04 AM »
Flat Earth Society does not have only one theory about the shape of Earth, there are many theories instead. And none of them is totally consistent, it have several versions, each user may have his own version of it, with individual and/or inedited statements. This all makes this proposal confuse.

I have a question: Are there any books/publications that can explain with more consistency these theories?
Logged


"People are like books: they need to be read. Don't stop reading on the cover, for there is a lot of wealth hidden beyond non-attractive covers." - Fábio de Melo
*

Lorddave

  • 18359
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #1 on: December 26, 2012, 04:50:35 AM »
Earth Not a Globe.
Logged
Quote from: wise on May 26, 2023, 05:06:05 AM
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.
?

robertotrevor

  • 694
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2012, 06:51:34 AM »
Logged
*

Lorddave

  • 18359
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #3 on: December 26, 2012, 08:08:34 AM »
Logged
Quote from: wise on May 26, 2023, 05:06:05 AM
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.
?

robertotrevor

  • 694
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2012, 08:22:09 AM »
Quote from: Lorddave on December 26, 2012, 08:08:34 AM
Quote from: robertotrevor on December 26, 2012, 06:51:34 AM
Quote from: Lorddave on December 26, 2012, 04:50:35 AM
Earth Not a Globe.

doesn't seem like that http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56675.0#.UNsOdXfNRBk
You asked for a book that was consistent.  You did not ask for consistent readers.

I assumed he meant consistent with flat earth beliefs (because most books are consistent..)
Logged
*

Lorddave

  • 18359
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #5 on: December 26, 2012, 08:24:16 AM »
Quote from: robertotrevor on December 26, 2012, 08:22:09 AM
Quote from: Lorddave on December 26, 2012, 08:08:34 AM
Quote from: robertotrevor on December 26, 2012, 06:51:34 AM
Quote from: Lorddave on December 26, 2012, 04:50:35 AM
Earth Not a Globe.

doesn't seem like that http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56675.0#.UNsOdXfNRBk
You asked for a book that was consistent.  You did not ask for consistent readers.

I assumed he meant consistent with flat earth beliefs (because most books are consistent..)
If that's the case then such a task is impossible.
It would be like asking us to produce a book that's consistent with Christian beliefs.  Such a book simply doesn't exist as is proven by the large number of christian sects.
Logged
Quote from: wise on May 26, 2023, 05:06:05 AM
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.
?

robertotrevor

  • 694
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #6 on: December 26, 2012, 08:40:48 AM »
Quote from: Lorddave on December 26, 2012, 08:24:16 AM
Quote from: robertotrevor on December 26, 2012, 08:22:09 AM
Quote from: Lorddave on December 26, 2012, 08:08:34 AM
Quote from: robertotrevor on December 26, 2012, 06:51:34 AM
Quote from: Lorddave on December 26, 2012, 04:50:35 AM
Earth Not a Globe.

doesn't seem like that http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56675.0#.UNsOdXfNRBk
You asked for a book that was consistent.  You did not ask for consistent readers.

I assumed he meant consistent with flat earth beliefs (because most books are consistent..)
If that's the case then such a task is impossible.
It would be like asking us to produce a book that's consistent with Christian beliefs.  Such a book simply doesn't exist as is proven by the large number of christian sects.

Are you comparing this "theory" with a religious belief?

The thing is, none of these "theories" you have are backed up by any kind of research, experimentation or evidence, I don't necessarily mean the shape of the earth, at least you have one experiment for that, but after declaring the earth flat, the rest is just an invention. Do the continents look like this or like that? could be anyway no real evidence for either, is the earth infinite or does it end after the ice wall? are there penguins guarding it or only the weather? why do eclipses happen? how far awa is the sun? all this questions you answer with assumptions everyone can have its own "theory" in this community because none of these have anything to back them, so they all have the same validity.
Logged
?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #7 on: December 26, 2012, 09:01:24 AM »
Quote from: robertotrevor on December 26, 2012, 08:40:48 AM
Quote from: Lorddave on December 26, 2012, 08:24:16 AM
Quote from: robertotrevor on December 26, 2012, 08:22:09 AM
Quote from: Lorddave on December 26, 2012, 08:08:34 AM
Quote from: robertotrevor on December 26, 2012, 06:51:34 AM
Quote from: Lorddave on December 26, 2012, 04:50:35 AM
Earth Not a Globe.

doesn't seem like that http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56675.0#.UNsOdXfNRBk
You asked for a book that was consistent.  You did not ask for consistent readers.

I assumed he meant consistent with flat earth beliefs (because most books are consistent..)
If that's the case then such a task is impossible.
It would be like asking us to produce a book that's consistent with Christian beliefs.  Such a book simply doesn't exist as is proven by the large number of christian sects.

Are you comparing this "theory" with a religious belief?

The thing is, none of these "theories" you have are backed up by any kind of research, experimentation or evidence, I don't necessarily mean the shape of the earth, at least you have one experiment for that, but after declaring the earth flat, the rest is just an invention. Do the continents look like this or like that? could be anyway no real evidence for either, is the earth infinite or does it end after the ice wall? are there penguins guarding it or only the weather? why do eclipses happen? how far awa is the sun? all this questions you answer with assumptions everyone can have its own "theory" in this community because none of these have anything to back them, so they all have the same validity.

You are not considering this from our point of view.  We are a relatively small organization.  If you want to learn more, then you should read the Faq and Earth not a globe.  Both will widen your perspective regarding our theories, but they will not give you a theory that is as complete as Round Earth theory.  This is because we use a different method, the Zetetic method. 

In threads of all sorts, we are often asked questions regarding gravity of celestial bodies, what the sun is made out of, and what is on the other side of the earth, or beyond the ice wall.  So many of speculate these things, whether we postulate that some of the larger celestial bodies can impact gravity on the earth's surface, or that the other side of the earth is just highly compressed rock, its often speculation.  This is because we are tired of being asked so often, and feel the need to just throw something out there. 

The true answer to many of these questions is, "I don't know, I have not been there, but its surprising to know that you believe to know what is going on there."

Now there are a number of FE'ers who are engaged in active research in certain areas, but for the most part we are simply trying to provide reasonable questions that for some reason RE'ers feel that they can demand be answered.
Logged
?

robertotrevor

  • 694
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #8 on: December 26, 2012, 09:13:21 AM »
From what Ive read, what you call the Zetetic method seems to rely mostly or only on what we can perceive with our senses and the interpretation of that (stars look like small dots, they are probably not that big), that seems like a very inefficient way for trying to understand the universe, taking in account evolution, I would say our senses are made mostly for understanding what is a few meters in front of us, and being aware of the environment surrounding us up to a few miles.
Logged
?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #9 on: December 26, 2012, 09:26:00 AM »
Quote from: robertotrevor on December 26, 2012, 09:13:21 AM
From what Ive read, what you call the Zetetic method seems to rely mostly or only on what we can perceive with our senses and the interpretation of that (stars look like small dots, they are probably not that big), that seems like a very inefficient way for trying to understand the universe, taking in account evolution, I would say our senses are made mostly for understanding what is a few meters in front of us, and being aware of the environment surrounding us up to a few miles.

I have never suggested that telescopes are not good tools for viewing the sky, not sure why you are implying that I did.
Logged
?

robertotrevor

  • 694
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #10 on: December 26, 2012, 09:29:51 AM »
Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on December 26, 2012, 09:26:00 AM
Quote from: robertotrevor on December 26, 2012, 09:13:21 AM
From what Ive read, what you call the Zetetic method seems to rely mostly or only on what we can perceive with our senses and the interpretation of that (stars look like small dots, they are probably not that big), that seems like a very inefficient way for trying to understand the universe, taking in account evolution, I would say our senses are made mostly for understanding what is a few meters in front of us, and being aware of the environment surrounding us up to a few miles.

I have never suggested that telescopes are not good tools for viewing the sky, not sure why you are implying that I did.

Never implied that you suggested that.
Logged
?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #11 on: December 26, 2012, 09:51:44 AM »
Quote from: robertotrevor on December 26, 2012, 09:29:51 AM
Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on December 26, 2012, 09:26:00 AM
Quote from: robertotrevor on December 26, 2012, 09:13:21 AM
From what Ive read, what you call the Zetetic method seems to rely mostly or only on what we can perceive with our senses and the interpretation of that (stars look like small dots, they are probably not that big), that seems like a very inefficient way for trying to understand the universe, taking in account evolution, I would say our senses are made mostly for understanding what is a few meters in front of us, and being aware of the environment surrounding us up to a few miles.

I have never suggested that telescopes are not good tools for viewing the sky, not sure why you are implying that I did.

Never implied that you suggested that.

Then what does eye sight have to do with my post?
Logged
?

EduardoVS-BR

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 431
  • I respect both theories.
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2012, 10:01:57 AM »
Note that anyone can post anything in this forums. Everyone posts what want here, starting totally new and in most cases, baseless theories.
Logged


"People are like books: they need to be read. Don't stop reading on the cover, for there is a lot of wealth hidden beyond non-attractive covers." - Fábio de Melo
?

robertotrevor

  • 694
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #13 on: December 26, 2012, 10:04:32 AM »
Im talking about what you call the zethetic method relying mostly on our perceptions and interpretation, and instead of explaining what you meant with zethetic method you mention that you don't have anything against telescopes, so is it ok if assume my interpretation of your method, with telescopes (wich I never said you had something against), is correct?
Logged
?

robertotrevor

  • 694
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #14 on: December 26, 2012, 10:18:37 AM »
Quote from: EduardoVS-BR on December 26, 2012, 10:01:57 AM
Note that anyone can post anything in this forums. Everyone posts what want here, starting totally new and in most cases, baseless theories.

So this is a low content forum, is there a serious flat earth forum?
Logged
?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #15 on: December 26, 2012, 10:33:48 AM »
Quote from: robertotrevor on December 26, 2012, 10:04:32 AM
Im talking about what you call the zethetic method relying mostly on our perceptions and interpretation, and instead of explaining what you meant with zethetic method you mention that you don't have anything against telescopes, so is it ok if assume my interpretation of your method, with telescopes (wich I never said you had something against), is correct?

Zetetics deal with the evidence that they are given, the evidence that they can see.  We do not like houses of cards, where there is no direct evidence for a theory, which is what round earthers accept.  Your vision comment is irrelevant because we are not against the usage of tools to enhance our perceptions.
Logged
?

robertotrevor

  • 694
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #16 on: December 26, 2012, 10:54:25 AM »
Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on December 26, 2012, 10:33:48 AM
Quote from: robertotrevor on December 26, 2012, 10:04:32 AM
Im talking about what you call the zethetic method relying mostly on our perceptions and interpretation, and instead of explaining what you meant with zethetic method you mention that you don't have anything against telescopes, so is it ok if assume my interpretation of your method, with telescopes (wich I never said you had something against), is correct?

Zetetics deal with the evidence that they are given, the evidence that they can see.  We do not like houses of cards, where there is no direct evidence for a theory, which is what round earthers accept.  Your vision comment is irrelevant because we are not against the usage of tools to enhance our perceptions.

Never said you were. I mean perception is very limited for understanding lots of things, also commented it was developed to understand things a few meters in front of us, didn't mention I was talking about things on earth, but that is also true.

Now you say you do not like houses of cards where there is no evidence for a theory and you deal with evidence you can see. So you accept you do not know how distant or what size the sun is from the earth? you also accept you do not know the position of the continents? or what causes moon eclipses? you accept you do not know anything about universal acceleration? do you also accept you do not know if celestial gears are really a thing? if so, i think I can agree with you more than other flat earthers.
Logged
?

iwanttobelieve

  • 5442
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #17 on: December 26, 2012, 10:58:58 AM »
Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on December 26, 2012, 10:33:48 AM
Quote from: robertotrevor on December 26, 2012, 10:04:32 AM
Im talking about what you call the zethetic method relying mostly on our perceptions and interpretation, and instead of explaining what you meant with zethetic method you mention that you don't have anything against telescopes, so is it ok if assume my interpretation of your method, with telescopes (wich I never said you had something against), is correct?


This is a great post,
and the reason why Zetetic's do not accept the Ice Wall theory.

Zetetics deal with the evidence that they are given, the evidence that they can see.  We do not like houses of cards, where there is no direct evidence for a theory, which is what round earthers accept.  Your vision comment is irrelevant because we are not against the usage of tools to enhance our perceptions.
Logged
*

Tintagel

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 190
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels!
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #18 on: December 26, 2012, 11:14:32 AM »
Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on December 26, 2012, 09:01:24 AM
The true answer to many of these questions is, "I don't know, I have not been there, but its surprising to know that you believe to know what is going on there."

I second this.  Great post.
Logged
*

Pythagoras

  • 3274
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #19 on: December 26, 2012, 11:48:25 AM »
most FERs say that round earth can exist because they don't understand and in their heads because they cant understand that means that it cant be true. so they make up much compiler reasons for our existence that don't stand up to scrutiny and end up becoming exponentially more complex to the point that its just ludicrous. once that happens they derail the thread or do their best to drive the topic away from their mistake. they don't mention it again for a while and hope you forget. and repeat. just look at tier wiki. half of it has no content, the other half has no basis in any scientifically based evidence, and no one FER has the same beliefs as the other.
Logged
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #20 on: December 26, 2012, 11:56:53 AM »
Quote from: Pythagoras on December 26, 2012, 11:48:25 AM
most FERs say that round earth can exist because they don't understand and in their heads because they cant understand that means that it cant be true. so they make up much compiler reasons for our existence that don't stand up to scrutiny and end up becoming exponentially more complex to the point that its just ludicrous. once that happens they derail the thread or do their best to drive the topic away from their mistake. they don't mention it again for a while and hope you forget. and repeat. just look at tier wiki. half of it has no content, the other half has no basis in any scientifically based evidence, and no one FER has the same beliefs as the other.

RE'ers make up theories to explain things that they can't otherwise explain, like gravity.  They  then have to make up other theories to explain what cause this, such as gravitons or bendy space time.  There are many different theories about gravity.  I wish they would just pick one theory and go with it, but they don't.  Why can't RE'ers just agree 100% with each other on every matter?  How can we take them seriously if they don't agree?
Logged
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #21 on: December 26, 2012, 08:02:35 PM »
Precisely. Not only do they not agree, they continue heaping new intricacies upon their theory until they shoehorn the observations to fit the standard model. Between globularism's universal acceleration, their dark energy, and the fact that gravitation, as Orthodoxy knows it, appears to be insufficient to keep galaxies from tearing themselves apart, one would think that maybe we could examine the validity of the standard model before adding more pseudoscience to the model.

And that is only concerning gravitation. We haven't even gotten started on stars somehow older than the universe, CMB anistropy, etc. Yet, even unasked, we'll no doubt have a dozen blowhards who have just read an article on the subject on wikipedia for the first time more than willing to tell you exactly how these things are explained, and pretend they are not at all mysterious.

The hypocrisy is stunning.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2012, 08:08:23 PM by Ski »
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #22 on: December 26, 2012, 08:36:28 PM »
RET is an elaborate but crudely constructed house of cards, and nothing more.
Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
*

Dinosaur Neil

  • 3177
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #23 on: December 27, 2012, 04:53:13 AM »
Quote from: Ski on December 26, 2012, 08:02:35 PM
Precisely. Not only do they not agree, they continue heaping new intricacies upon their theory until they shoehorn the observations to fit the standard model. Between globularism's universal acceleration, their dark energy, and the fact that gravitation, as Orthodoxy knows it, appears to be insufficient to keep galaxies from tearing themselves apart, one would think that maybe we could examine the validity of the standard model before adding more pseudoscience to the model.

And that is only concerning gravitation. We haven't even gotten started on stars somehow older than the universe, CMB anistropy, etc. Yet, even unasked, we'll no doubt have a dozen blowhards who have just read an article on the subject on wikipedia for the first time more than willing to tell you exactly how these things are explained, and pretend they are not at all mysterious.

The hypocrisy is stunning.

Stop all the Society backslapping, your comparisons are useless and wrong.
The difference between round earth science and flat "science" is that real scientists admit "there are problems with this idea, it doesn't match what we observe perfectly, so we will formulate different theories to see if we can find a better way to understand what we observe, since what we observe must be truth." No modern scientist even begins to pretend we fully understand the universe.
Contrast that with the flat earth approach of "We have a theory, there is no observable evidence for it, in fact it conflicts with accepted laws of physics and observation, but we are going to claim our theory as absolute truth and not look at any possibility of it being in error, because the theory is truth, not what we observe." You claim you fully understand the universe and when people point out errors to you every day, you don't address them. Or you childishly try to distract attention away from the issue by complaining that somebody used the wrong word in a post.  ::)

When a Society member grows up and admits you not only don't actually have an explanation for things like the movement of the night sky but are not even attempting to find one, then maybe the rest of the world will look at you with something other than mockery. It's not the cracked nature of your theories that makes FET ridiculous - it's your persistent parroting that they are perfect and don't have problems.
Logged
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
Quote from: John Davis on December 20, 2017, 11:04:01 AM
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #24 on: December 27, 2012, 11:07:57 AM »
I cannot imagine I've ever seen anyone claim such a thing. The only people claiming they have everything figured out are all the wiki-educated globularists here. The same ones claiming that Orthodoxy has things so well figured out that there is no point in disagreeing with them.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

Dinosaur Neil

  • 3177
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #25 on: December 27, 2012, 12:41:22 PM »
Quote from: Ski on December 27, 2012, 11:07:57 AM
I cannot imagine I've ever seen anyone claim such a thing.

Tom Bishop does.
Logged
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
Quote from: John Davis on December 20, 2017, 11:04:01 AM
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #26 on: December 27, 2012, 05:14:07 PM »
Can you link me to a post wherein Tom has claimed to fully understand the cosmos?
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

Dinosaur Neil

  • 3177
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #27 on: December 27, 2012, 05:22:57 PM »
Quote from: Ski on December 27, 2012, 05:14:07 PM
Can you link me to a post wherein Tom has claimed to fully understand the cosmos?

The ones where he "explained" the way the sun moves using fake physics.
Logged
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
Quote from: John Davis on December 20, 2017, 11:04:01 AM
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #28 on: December 27, 2012, 05:58:03 PM »
It is a bold leap from proposing a mechanism for the sun's movement to claiming one "fully understands the universe", isn't it?
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

Dinosaur Neil

  • 3177
Re: There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all
« Reply #29 on: December 28, 2012, 04:15:31 AM »
Quote from: Ski on December 27, 2012, 05:58:03 PM
It is a bold leap from proposing a mechanism for the sun's movement to claiming one "fully understands the universe", isn't it?

Except his mechanism for the sun's movement is nonsense. It rests on a made up bit of physics about perspective which is untrue. Flat Earthers extend this principle to any given criticism of their theory, like this...
There is no explanation for the rotation of the sky - Celestial gears
There is no explanation for how satellites function - secret technology we don't know about
There is no explanation for why nobody has seen the edge - There's an ice wall nobody has seen

The key feature of all these "explanations" is that they're not explanations, they're excuses - they all have the format "there is a reason but there is no available information about the reason or how it functions". Some of them (like Celestial gears) don't even fit observation. A recurring theme of proclaiming a theory to be true whilst at the same time admitting it rests on huge unknowables.
Yet people like Tom Bishop claim that none of these things are problems for FET and that it makes sense. I'd say that's making that leap.
Logged
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
Quote from: John Davis on December 20, 2017, 11:04:01 AM
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »