THe burden of proof is on FE's

I must have skipped class in grades 9, 10 ,11 and 12 because I don't understand the point you're trying to make at all.

Well skipping these grades explains why you don't understand the point I'm trying to make. It also explains why you believe the earth is flat.

I think you're just making shit up and don't know what you're talking about.

However, you've proven time and time again that what you think is irrelevant and therefore can be ignored. You haven't even gone to high school based on the above post.

I didn't say that I didn't go to high school.  What I meant was if you are right than I mustn't have gone to high school.  I'm sorry that was so complicated for you to understand.

Actually I went to high school and studied physics in all those years.


Since you are unable to back up your claim that Newton's third law of motion applies to gravity, it is clear that you did make that up and you are full of crap as usual.

I didn't say that I didn't go to high school.  What I meant was if you are right than I mustn't have gone to high school.  I'm sorry that was so complicated for you to understand.

Actually I went to high school and studied physics in all those years.


Since you are unable to back up your claim that Newton's third law of motion applies to gravity, it is clear that you did make that up and you are full of crap as usual.

You are clearly angry. Angry people don't argue very well. Also, you must be angry for a reson. I believe that reason is that you always lose arguments. Furthermore, you should be the last person to talk about "backing up arguments" when you failed to answer any questions directed at you. You believe the earth is flat mate and nobody knows why. What kind of authority do you think you have in telling others whether or not they back their claims up?

Third law
To every action (force applied) there is an equal but opposite reaction (equal force applied in the opposite direction).
Another way of stating Newton's third law, an interaction between two objects, is that, if object A exerts a force on object B, object B will exert the same magnitude force on A, but in the opposite direction.

Just for the record, at the time when it was published, that law tied directly into gravity like this: walking on the surface of the earth means that you are exerting a force onto it, a force that earth exerts back onto you. On a greater scale, other bodies exert an attractive force onto earth, while at the same time earth exerts an attractive force onto them. That translates into gravity.

Even wikipedia states this under Newton's third law:

If a basketball hits the ground, the basketball's force on the Earth is the same as Earth's force on the basketball. However, due to the ball's much smaller mass, Newton's second law predicts that its acceleration will be much greater than that of the Earth. Not only do planets accelerate toward stars, but stars also accelerate toward planets.

You are clearly angry. Angry people don't argue very well. Also, you must be angry for a reson.

You have the most warped view of people's emotions ever.  I don't know if you know this but a while ago I posted why I post on this forum and the number 1 reason was because it's a hilarious forum.  Don't think for an instant just your presence arguing that the Earth is round doesn't make me laugh at you every time you post.  Also it is spelt "reason."

I believe that reason is that you always lose arguments.

Show me an argument I have lost.  I can only think of two and I lost them both to fellow FEers...

Furthermore, you should be the last person to talk about "backing up arguments" when you failed to answer any questions directed at you. You believe the earth is flat mate and nobody knows why. What kind of authority do you think you have in telling others whether or not they back their claims up?

 How many times have I claimed something to be true that I haven't backed up with facts.  The only thing I claim without backing up is that the Earth is flat.  Perhaps you should go read my early posts on this forum and maybe you'll learn something about me.

Just for the record, at the time when it was published, that law tied directly into gravity like this: walking on the surface of the earth means that you are exerting a force onto it, a force that earth exerts back onto you. On a greater scale, other bodies exert an attractive force onto earth, while at the same time earth exerts an attractive force onto them. That translates into gravity.

This is a completely irrelevant point.

They don't. They help prove the earth is round (read more carefully) by providing relationships between the forces acting on a body - gravity comes to mind here.

That's what you said.

I understand how it works.  I don't understand how it is remotely evidence that the Earth is round.  Can we measure this force pulling the Earth up towards the basketball?  How do we know it exists?  Because Newton says so?  Don't you know that Newtonian physics don't actually work in the real world?  They just appear to when things work slowly.  At least that's going on RE physics which you apparently know everything about.

the number 1 reason was because it's a hilarious forum

Your gloomy, angry attitude shows differently.

Show me an argument I have lost.

For example, all the arguments you've had with me.

The only thing I claim without backing up is that the Earth is flat.

That is the most important claim that you're trying to make. All the other are rubbish. As you can see, the only important claim you've made is not backed up by anything. How sad...

This is a completely irrelevant point.

I never though I'd say this but... you are an idiot. That was the answer to your question.

I don't understand how it is remotely evidence that the Earth is round.

It's not. I said it helped the RE theory, not that it was evidence for a round earth. Read more carefully.

Surely evidence is anything that helps out a theory.  It can't "help out" RE theory without being evidence for it.

  1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
   2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
   3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

From the American Heritage Dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

Look I just backed up what I was saying.

Sure it can. It helps Newton's law of gravitation, which directly helps the RE theory.

Did you read those definitions of "evidence"

1.A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

You're saying that the third law helps Newton's law of gravity which helps RE theory but that Newton's third law is not helpful in forming a conclusion or judgement that the Earth is round?  How is that not a contradiction?

You're saying that the third law helps Newton's law of gravity which helps RE theory but that Newton's third law is not helpful in forming a conclusion or judgement that the Earth is round?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that Newton's third law is a generalization. Newton's law of gravity is a particularization - it only refers to gravity. That's how it's taught in physics, too. Therefore both of them form a conclusion that the earth is round.

But the third law is not evidence for the Earth being round?

It does not in anyway help in making a judgement that the Earth is round?

Or were you wrong in saying that the third law is not evidence that the Earth is round?

But the third law is not evidence for the Earth being round?

It does not in anyway help in making a judgement that the Earth is round?

Or were you wrong in saying that the third law is not evidence that the Earth is round?

Newton's third law is a generalization. Newton's law of gravity is a particularization of it - it only refers to gravity. That's how it's taught in physics, too. Therefore both of them form a conclusion that the earth is round.

Quote

the number 1 reason was because it's a hilarious forum

Your gloomy, angry attitude shows differently.

I doubt it very much. I myself joined these forums mainly for the humour value as well and I can safely say I find your posts amusing.

Quote from: "bibicul"

Quote

the number 1 reason was because it's a hilarious forum

Your gloomy, angry attitude shows differently.

I doubt it very much. I myself joined these forums mainly for the humour value as well and I can safely say I find your posts amusing.

No you can't.  You have no proof that you laughed.  For all we know, you could be lying to us.

The burden of proof lies in the argument that does not conform to the presumed norm in tangible facts. In other words, if it was commonly assumed that the earth was flat, the Spherical earth proponents would have the burden of proof.

This is not the case. The Flat Earth society made a claim that is not in conformity with what the majority of the world's population knows, believes, and is taught to be fact.

Therefore any claim other than the earth is spherical requires tangible and credible evidence that cannot be refuted with sane and competent logical deduction.

Only in belief systems which have absolutely no tangible asset, does the burden of proof fall on the claimant for the positive affirmation of such belief.

In other words, Religion has the burden of proof when it claims to be the True religion, whereas the non believer has no reason to assert his posistion. This is because the involvement of said religion assures participation, power base, free advertisement, and probable monetary income. Whereas the non believer has no motivation to prove his point, other than in a defense.

But the third law is not evidence for the Earth being round?

It does not in anyway help in making a judgement that the Earth is round?

Or were you wrong in saying that the third law is not evidence that the Earth is round?

Didn't you read what he just wrote? You're ridiculising yourself here.

Didn't you read what he just wrote? You're ridiculising yourself here.

The bit about the third law being a generalization and the law of gravity being a particularization?  Yeah, I don't see how that supports the conclusion that the Earth is round any more than it supports the conclusion that I can walk on walls.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Didn't you read what he just wrote? You're ridiculising yourself here.

The bit about the third law being a generalization and the law of gravity being a particularization?  Yeah, I don't see how that supports the conclusion that the Earth is round any more than it supports the conclusion that I can walk on walls.

You can walk on walls?

Newton's third law is a generalization. Newton's law of gravity is a particularization of it - it only refers to gravity. That's how it's taught in physics, too. Therefore both of them form a conclusion that the earth is round.

You are clearly horny.  Horny people don't argue very well.  Also, you must be horny for a reason.  I believe that reason is because you like to think of yourself as a master debater.  Read the definition of "evidence" again.  Read what you just wrote.  Read your comment that you don't think Newton's third law is not evidence for the shape of the Earth.  Explain how what you've said, combined with the dictionary definition of "evidence" is not a contradiction.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Didn't you read what he just wrote? You're ridiculising yourself here.

The bit about the third law being a generalization and the law of gravity being a particularization?  Yeah, I don't see how that supports the conclusion that the Earth is round any more than it supports the conclusion that I can walk on walls.

If you don't see how it does then look it up. Gravity is what creates planets, as opposed to a universe filled with interstallar dust.

 Therefore both of them form a conclusion that the earth is round.

But the third law is not evidence for the Earth being round?

It does not in anyway help in making a judgement that the Earth is round?

Or were you wrong in saying that the third law is not evidence that the Earth is round?

Beast seems to have some trouble with reading.

If you don't see how it does then look it up.

OR you could actually try defending your views yourself.  We're asking where the roundness comes from the Third Law and gravity.  If you can't back that up, just admit it; don't just brush us aside with your "go look it up" nonsense.  Give us an explicit reference if you want us to "look it up".

To further EnragedPenguin's argument, WE could be the ones that are in denial.  (FYI: Me=RoundEarther)

This may not mean much, but you win the poster of the month award for this.

Unofficially, of course.

We need more people thinking like that.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

If you don't see how it does then look it up.

OR you could actually try defending your views yourself.  We're asking where the roundness comes from the Third Law and gravity.  If you can't back that up, just admit it; don't just brush us aside with your "go look it up" nonsense.  Give us an explicit reference if you want us to "look it up".

You conveniently did not quote the 2nd sentence.

And why am I more credible than a source of information you could find on your own all of a sudden?

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

To further EnragedPenguin's argument, WE could be the ones that are in denial.  (FYI: Me=RoundEarther)

This may not mean much, but you win the poster of the month award for this.

Unofficially, of course.

We need more people thinking like that.

I'm going to take the time to celebrate ... stop!
KIRBY TIME!
(> o.o )>  <( o.o )>  ^( o.o )v  v( o.o )^  <( o.o )>  <( o.o <)

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

To further EnragedPenguin's argument, WE could be the ones that are in denial.  (FYI: Me=RoundEarther)

This may not mean much, but you win the poster of the month award for this.

Unofficially, of course.

We need more people thinking like that.

I would second that.... also unofficially, of course ;)

Quote from: "bibicul"

Newton's third law is a generalization. Newton's law of gravity is a particularization of it - it only refers to gravity. That's how it's taught in physics, too. Therefore both of them form a conclusion that the earth is round.

You are clearly horny.  Horny people don't argue very well.  Also, you must be horny for a reason.  I believe that reason is because you like to think of yourself as a master debater.  Read the definition of "evidence" again.  Read what you just wrote.  Read your comment that you don't think Newton's third law is not evidence for the shape of the Earth.  Explain how what you've said, combined with the dictionary definition of "evidence" is not a contradiction.

Explain what? Are you dysfunctional beast? You need basic logic explained to you? Or are you just horny and trying to make it seem like other people have similar "problems" to yours? I'd go for the last choice, which I pity you for. Try and get some ass mate. If you can...

Since Newton's theory of gravitation is a particularization of his 3rd law, and since a direct result of gravitation is "the very existence of the Earth, the Sun, and other celestial bodies; without it, matter would not have coalesced into these (ROUND!!!) bodies and life as we know it would not exist" - and we "know" life to be taking place on a round earth, at least on wikipedia, where this quote is taken from (ironically, under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_theory_of_gravitation), how can you not understand that:
- if we define A to be Newton's third law;
-  "----------"  B to be Newton's theory of gravitation;
-  "----------"  C to be the round earth
then clearly since B is a particular case of A, and B explains (or "accounts for", or whatever word you want to pick so we don't get stuck in form anymore - since that's all your mind has the power to perceive) C, then there is a connection between A and C THROUGH B, and therefore the two (A and C) are interconnected themselves. It's not rocket science.

Lol. He uses "conspiracy" tools as well - wikipedia, dictionary.com, thesaurus.com and many, many other websites which he cites in his statements. Basically, if they were all part of the conspiracy then RE'ers should not use them and rather "re-prove" (sorry for that term) everything that "is" all over again. They obviously can't do that.  

He's not signed in yet. Don't worry, he'll reply.

Like I said before, Beast is special.