Cult of Gravity

I would recommend that in addition to the RE label, we should add a term called the "Cult of Gravity". Here are my reasons:

1. Many of the RE camp continually use the nonsense of gravity to try to refute the Flat Earth.
2. Using "gravity" as an argument, they come up will all sorts of ridiculous models of the universe, arguing that the Earth goes around the sun and other planets as well.
3. Using "gravity", they often confuse many FE. Furthermore, they embolden the RE that their arguments are correct.
4. Gravity has never been proven--a theory or myth created by scientists. Who knows if they had ambition or simply delirious fantasies.
5. Force based on acceleration can be proved, and can be reproduced by a 5-year-old in the backyard with a bucket of water.
6. Cults believe certain things despite all evidences to the contrary, and they build energy off of others who do the same.
7. Cults are often adamant about their incomprehensible views and observe that all others are "unenlightened" and foolish.
8. Cults rely on rhetoric and intimidation to enforce concepts that are otherwise unnatural.
9. Cult members (despite their objections to the contrary) are rarely enlightened individuals, and are more often sheep who follow a concept mindlessly.

Perhaps there are others, but these are those that are obvious to me.

I would recommend that in addition to the RE label, we should add a term called the "Cult of Gravity". Here are my reasons:

1. Many of the RE camp continually use the nonsense of gravity to try to refute the Flat Earth.
2. Using "gravity" as an argument, they come up will all sorts of ridiculous models of the universe, arguing that the Earth goes around the sun and other planets as well.
3. Using "gravity", they often confuse many FE. Furthermore, they embolden the RE that their arguments are correct.
4. Gravity has never been proven--a theory or myth created by scientists. Who knows if they had ambition or simply delirious fantasies.
5. Force based on acceleration can be proved, and can be reproduced by a 5-year-old in the backyard with a bucket of water.
6. Cults believe certain things despite all evidences to the contrary, and they build energy off of others who do the same.
7. Cults are often adamant about their incomprehensible views and observe that all others are "unenlightened" and foolish.
8. Cults rely on rhetoric and intimidation to enforce concepts that are otherwise unnatural.
9. Cult members (despite their objections to the contrary) are rarely enlightened individuals, and are more often sheep who follow a concept mindlessly.

Perhaps there are others, but these are those that are obvious to me.

I totally agree. This makes total sense to me.

What about gravitation?  Does that exist?

According to science, gravity clearly does not exist. It cannot be reproduced by experiment and no reproducible theories explain why it would (or could) exist.

what evidence is their of UA?
FE still uses gravity? hypocrisy much?

what evidence is their of UA?
FE still uses gravity? hypocrisy much?

I'll come back to this thread when you show me a test tube of gravitons.

I'll come back to this thread when you show me a test tube of gravitons.

If gravity exists and is caused by gravitons, a test tube by default would already be full of them.

Quote from: Pythagoras on January 15, 2013, 09:44:35 AM

what evidence is their of UA?
FE still uses gravity? hypocrisy much?

I'll come back to this thread when you show me a test tube of gravitons.

where is the test tube of what ever it is that causes UA?

According to science, gravity clearly does not exist. It cannot be reproduced by experiment and no reproducible theories explain why it would (or could) exist.

I didn't ask about gravity.  I asked about gravitation.  The two are completely different.

How the hell did the flat earth form itself? Gravity explains how the round earth formed itself, but does the UA explain how the flat earth formed itself? No creationist crap, please.

Quote from: Pythagoras on January 15, 2013, 09:44:35 AM

what evidence is their of UA?
FE still uses gravity? hypocrisy much?

I'll come back to this thread when you show me a test tube of gravitons.

I like to think there was some sort of village idiot standing next to Isaac Newton and telling him "I'll believe light exists when you show me an earthenware jug full of photons".
It's quite frightening how much that's an exact parallel with the FE'ers insistence that gravity can only be shown to exist if the graviton can.

Quote from: Thork on January 15, 2013, 09:45:43 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on January 15, 2013, 09:44:35 AM

what evidence is their of UA?
FE still uses gravity? hypocrisy much?

I'll come back to this thread when you show me a test tube of gravitons.

I like to think there was some sort of village idiot standing next to Isaac Newton and telling him "I'll believe light exists when you show me an earthenware jug full of photons".
It's quite frightening how much that's an exact parallel with the FE'ers insistence that gravity can only be shown to exist if the graviton can.

As well as being seen perfectly with the naked eye.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 15, 2013, 12:11:05 PM

Quote from: Thork on January 15, 2013, 09:45:43 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on January 15, 2013, 09:44:35 AM

what evidence is their of UA?
FE still uses gravity? hypocrisy much?

I'll come back to this thread when you show me a test tube of gravitons.

I like to think there was some sort of village idiot standing next to Isaac Newton and telling him "I'll believe light exists when you show me an earthenware jug full of photons".
It's quite frightening how much that's an exact parallel with the FE'ers insistence that gravity can only be shown to exist if the graviton can.

As well as being seen perfectly with the naked eye.

As can the effects of gravity be felt with the human limb.

How the hell did the flat earth form itself? Gravity explains how the round earth formed itself, but does the UA explain how the flat earth formed itself? No creationist crap, please.

We aren't sure how the flat-earth was formed, but unlike religion or mainstream science, we aren't afraid to say that we don't know rather than make something up.

unlike religion or mainstream science, we aren't afraid to say that we don't know rather than make something up.

This had me in stitches. I refer you to Tausami and his marvellous explain-it-all aether theory.

Quote from: Pongo on January 18, 2013, 11:59:20 AM

unlike religion or mainstream science, we aren't afraid to say that we don't know rather than make something up.

This had me in stitches. I refer you to Tausami and his marvellous explain-it-all aether theory.

If a mainstream physicist comes out with a new theory, are you, as a proponent of mainstream physics, duty-bound to from that point on advocate and support their theory?  Of course not.  There are many different theories on the same topic across science.  You can't be expected to actively support them all.  Why do you hold us to that standard.  I'm not saying that Tausami is wrong, I'm just saying that flat-earth theory is a rich scientific front and I've not had the chance to delve into the particulars of his theory.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 18, 2013, 12:01:04 PM

Quote from: Pongo on January 18, 2013, 11:59:20 AM

unlike religion or mainstream science, we aren't afraid to say that we don't know rather than make something up.

This had me in stitches. I refer you to Tausami and his marvellous explain-it-all aether theory.

If a mainstream physicist comes out with a new theory, are you, as a proponent of mainstream physics, duty-bound to from that point on advocate and support their theory?  Of course not.  There are many different theories on the same topic across science.  You can't be expected to actively support them all.  Why do you hold us to that standard.  I'm not saying that Tausami is wrong, I'm just saying that flat-earth theory is a rich scientific front and I've not had the chance to delve into the particulars of his theory.

To follow your line of logic means you should be treating the round earth model as just as possible as any of the flat earth models. But strangely, I don't see that happening.

I like the phrase 'Cult of Gravity' I'm going to start using it more often.

I also think the 'Cult of Magnetism' should fall in the same category, as the same criticisms also apply.

Quote from: Pongo on January 18, 2013, 12:08:59 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 18, 2013, 12:01:04 PM

Quote from: Pongo on January 18, 2013, 11:59:20 AM

unlike religion or mainstream science, we aren't afraid to say that we don't know rather than make something up.

This had me in stitches. I refer you to Tausami and his marvellous explain-it-all aether theory.

If a mainstream physicist comes out with a new theory, are you, as a proponent of mainstream physics, duty-bound to from that point on advocate and support their theory?  Of course not.  There are many different theories on the same topic across science.  You can't be expected to actively support them all.  Why do you hold us to that standard.  I'm not saying that Tausami is wrong, I'm just saying that flat-earth theory is a rich scientific front and I've not had the chance to delve into the particulars of his theory.

To follow your line of logic means you should be treating the round earth model as just as possible as any of the flat earth models. But strangely, I don't see that happening.

When I began my quest for determining the shape of the earth I forced myself to "forget" my round-earth upbringing and view that problem as objectively as I could.  So, yes, there was a time when I had to treat the round and flat earth theories as equally possible.  As well as a few other theories I was weighing them against, such as hollow-earth theory.  Over time, all evidence I encountered could be more easily and eloquently explained by flat-earth theory.  Not to mention that flat-earth theory is intuitive while round-earth and hollow-earth theories are not.

I trust that anyone who can look at the problem objectively will come to the same conclusion.

You know, I think if everybody in the world except for you and about a thousand others believes in something else, that makes YOU the cult.

By the way, force by acceleration and gravity are competing theories and gravity has more evidence (in that we see moons orbiting planets orbiting the sun orbiting the galaxy, while nothing else in the universe besides, to FEers, the Earth is continually accelerating to create a duplicate of gravity).

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 18, 2013, 01:38:18 PM

Quote from: Pongo on January 18, 2013, 12:08:59 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 18, 2013, 12:01:04 PM

Quote from: Pongo on January 18, 2013, 11:59:20 AM

unlike religion or mainstream science, we aren't afraid to say that we don't know rather than make something up.

This had me in stitches. I refer you to Tausami and his marvellous explain-it-all aether theory.

If a mainstream physicist comes out with a new theory, are you, as a proponent of mainstream physics, duty-bound to from that point on advocate and support their theory?  Of course not.  There are many different theories on the same topic across science.  You can't be expected to actively support them all.  Why do you hold us to that standard.  I'm not saying that Tausami is wrong, I'm just saying that flat-earth theory is a rich scientific front and I've not had the chance to delve into the particulars of his theory.

To follow your line of logic means you should be treating the round earth model as just as possible as any of the flat earth models. But strangely, I don't see that happening.

When I began my quest for determining the shape of the earth I forced myself to "forget" my round-earth upbringing and view that problem as objectively as I could.  So, yes, there was a time when I had to treat the round and flat earth theories as equally possible.  As well as a few other theories I was weighing them against, such as hollow-earth theory.  Over time, all evidence I encountered could be more easily and eloquently explained by flat-earth theory.  Not to mention that flat-earth theory is intuitive while round-earth and hollow-earth theories are not.

I trust that anyone who can look at the problem objectively will come to the same conclusion.

More easily and eloquently explained by Flat Earth theories? Are you kidding me?
Conventional RET gravity explains the movements of the sun, the movements of the moon, the seasons, the reason we stick to the earth, and the reason why the earth would be round.
FET currently has no agreed explanation for the movements of the sun or moon, no explanation of the cause of seasons, no explanation of why the earth is flat as opposed to any other shape, and its explanation of why we stick to the ground has holes you could drive a bus through (such as why is there a different accelerative force felt in different parts of the world?)
Conventional RET explains why the sun appears to set and rise, why ships sink over the horizon, and why a beam of neutrinos fired into the ground are detected in another country.
FET requires unproven and undemonstrable physics to be at work for the first two things, and has no explanation at all for the third.

But sure, if you want to redefine what easy and eloquent mean, then that's what you'll need to do to in order to say that FET has the edge in that respect. Please don't treat the readers as if they're stupid, Pongo.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 18, 2013, 12:01:04 PM

Quote from: Pongo on January 18, 2013, 11:59:20 AM

unlike religion or mainstream science, we aren't afraid to say that we don't know rather than make something up.

This had me in stitches. I refer you to Tausami and his marvellous explain-it-all aether theory.

If a mainstream physicist comes out with a new theory, are you, as a proponent of mainstream physics, duty-bound to from that point on advocate and support their theory?  Of course not.  There are many different theories on the same topic across science.  You can't be expected to actively support them all.  Why do you hold us to that standard.  I'm not saying that Tausami is wrong, I'm just saying that flat-earth theory is a rich scientific front and I've not had the chance to delve into the particulars of his theory.

As usual, you are showing total incapacity to understand the Scientific Method and the methods with which "mainstream science" works.

If there are several different supposed "theories" on a subject that produce conflicting predictions, they are not theories, they are hypothesis.

A hypothesis only acquires the status of theory if and when it is demonstrated that its predictive power is superior to the conflicting hypothesis. You do not have several conflicting theories to choose from.

Only the unscientific proponents of ideas like FET try to market them as theories, even though they are hypothesis that contradict current theories and have almost no predictive power. Or should we say no predictive power whatsoever?

The terminological designation of "cult" is more literal, as far as gravity goes, than first meets the eye.  Newton's obsession with spheres and roundness was religious to the core, drawing heavily on Neoplatonist occult beliefs which proclaimed the sphere to be the perfect shape.  Early globularists took it on faith that the Earth must mirror the formal perfection of the sphere, and Newton was among them.  Asag ("Isaac") Newton was a deeply superstitious occult fanatic, practicing alchemy and no doubt other, far more sinister unspeakable rites which he dredged from the seedy bowels of myth and history. Newton calibrated the anecdote of his gravitational prophecy in imitation of the Biblical fall - the forbidden apple supposedly bringing him arcane "knowledge" of the universe and completing his communion with Satan. Truly a disturbed individual, and by no means a man of true science.

Not to mention that flat-earth theory is intuitive while round-earth and hollow-earth theories are not.

I trust that anyone who can look at the problem objectively will come to the same conclusion.

You cannot claim to be objective if intuition is a factor in your acceptance of a particular theory. Intuition is subjective.

...When I began my quest for determining the shape of the earth I forced myself to "forget" my round-earth upbringing and view that problem as objectively as I could.  So, yes, there was a time when I had to treat the round and flat earth theories as equally possible.  ...
Over time, all evidence I encountered could be more easily and eloquently explained by flat-earth theory...

We aren't sure how the flat-earth was formed, but unlike religion or mainstream science, we aren't afraid to say that we don't know rather than make something up.

Do you notice you use this "don't know" answer much more often since you switched?

The terminological designation of "cult" is more literal, as far as gravity goes, than first meets the eye.  Newton's obsession with spheres and roundness was religious to the core, drawing heavily on Neoplatonist occult beliefs which proclaimed the sphere to be the perfect shape.  Early globularists took it on faith that the Earth must mirror the formal perfection of the sphere, and Newton was among them.  Asag ("Isaac") Newton was a deeply superstitious occult fanatic, practicing alchemy and no doubt other, far more sinister unspeakable rites which he dredged from the seedy bowels of myth and history. Newton calibrated the anecdote of his gravitational prophecy in imitation of the Biblical fall - the forbidden apple supposedly bringing him arcane "knowledge" of the universe and completing his communion with Satan. Truly a disturbed individual, and by no means a man of true science.

+1 Indeed. My statement was directed more at the FE than the RE because I knew that because of their religious beliefs they wouldn't accept the term anyway.

Newton's obsession with spheres and roundness was religious to the core, drawing heavily on Neoplatonist occult beliefs which proclaimed the sphere to be the perfect shape.

We could be called a cult of sorts, but our dogma is not spheres, it is the Scientific Method. Millions of things in Science are spherical, but millions are straight lines, and millions are curves. And yet, of the millions of ugly non-spherical things in our cult, you believe we only fight flat Earths?

So, give me a few examples of other non-spherical objects that we try to banish, and I will personally help you in your holy war.

Earth

Earth

Muggsy, you might want to read more thoroughly.

So, give me a few examples of other non-spherical objects that we try to banish, and I will personally help you in your holy war.

I have highlighted, italicized, underlined, shadowed, and glowed the relevant word.

Pennies, Pancakes, Lakes. What kind of examples are you looking for?