Does anyone agree with the theories of this forum's most prolific flat earther?

  • 41 Replies
  • 4622 Views
?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
In the topic titled "About that Ice Dome", prolific contributor Sceptimatic made many statements that clarify and extend his ice dome theory.  His ideas received little or no support from other flat earthers.  I think it's important to know whether even flat earthers think Sceptimatic ideas are silly.  Below is a partial list of statements my by Sceptimatic on that thread.  If you are a flat earth supporter, please indicate which ones you think are probably true.

1) The earth is covered by an ice dome.
2) There is no such thing as outer space.
3) What we think are stars, planets, the Moon and other celestial objects are just reflections of things on or in the Earth.
4) The Sun is inside the earth.  Actually, there are two Suns - a dark one and a light one.  The interaction between the two Suns causes the illusion of an eclipse.
5) The law of Conservation of Momentum does not exist.
6) Inertia does not exist.

This is the Flat Earth Society.  It's for people who believe in a flat earth.  It's not the People Who Only Agree With One Flat Earth Model Society.

Do you actually believe that there can be more than one correct model?
I don't think that's what he said, Rama.

No but there is a culture here of FEers tolerating or applauding people who come along with their pet FE theory, even though there clearly can only be one theory and most (all?) of the FE theories are incoherent.  What is the value in propping up a bunch of sloppy ideas?  Surely free-thinking is not an end but rather a means and I sincerely hope that this society is concerned with the truth of the matter.

Nah, they are concerned with RET being wrong. It's not about finding the truth. If it was then they would debate each other as well.
If you haven't noticed in your omniscience, some of us do debate each other.

Yeah ok .
Please refrain from the low-content sarcastic remarks.
I'm sure you know you're not supposed to do things like that.

Memberating is also against the rules so physician heal thyself.  I have never seen a FEer have a real prolonged debate about the merits and weaknesses of various models.  If you want to enlighten me, feel free.
I wasn't "memberating", I just thought it was quite rude and pointless.
I'm sure I've had conversations with scepti and the likes about the dome nonsense, as an example.

Yeah but I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about FE'rs.

And by the way, you should probably just get a new username. I'm gonna bug you about this everytime I see you post here. So yeah.
I am a flat Earth enthusiast.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, and if you think you're bothering me I'm still not sure what you're hoping to accomplish.
I'm sorry you can't handle the truth.

You are a round earther and you believe in chemtrails.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4688
  • It's SCIENCE!
In the topic titled "About that Ice Dome", prolific contributor Sceptimatic made many statements that clarify and extend his ice dome theory.  His ideas received little or no support from other flat earthers.  I think it's important to know whether even flat earthers think Sceptimatic ideas are silly.  Below is a partial list of statements my by Sceptimatic on that thread.  If you are a flat earth supporter, please indicate which ones you think are probably true.

1) The earth is covered by an ice dome.
2) There is no such thing as outer space.
3) What we think are stars, planets, the Moon and other celestial objects are just reflections of things on or in the Earth.
4) The Sun is inside the earth.  Actually, there are two Suns - a dark one and a light one.  The interaction between the two Suns causes the illusion of an eclipse.
5) The law of Conservation of Momentum does not exist.
6) Inertia does not exist.

This is the Flat Earth Society.  It's for people who believe in a flat earth.  It's not the People Who Only Agree With One Flat Earth Model Society.

Do you actually believe that there can be more than one correct model?
I don't think that's what he said, Rama.

No but there is a culture here of FEers tolerating or applauding people who come along with their pet FE theory, even though there clearly can only be one theory and most (all?) of the FE theories are incoherent.  What is the value in propping up a bunch of sloppy ideas?  Surely free-thinking is not an end but rather a means and I sincerely hope that this society is concerned with the truth of the matter.

Nah, they are concerned with RET being wrong. It's not about finding the truth. If it was then they would debate each other as well.
If you haven't noticed in your omniscience, some of us do debate each other.

Yeah ok .
Please refrain from the low-content sarcastic remarks.
I'm sure you know you're not supposed to do things like that.

Memberating is also against the rules so physician heal thyself.  I have never seen a FEer have a real prolonged debate about the merits and weaknesses of various models.  If you want to enlighten me, feel free.
I wasn't "memberating", I just thought it was quite rude and pointless.
I'm sure I've had conversations with scepti and the likes about the dome nonsense, as an example.

Yeah but I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about FE'rs.

And by the way, you should probably just get a new username. I'm gonna bug you about this everytime I see you post here. So yeah.
I am a flat Earth enthusiast.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, and if you think you're bothering me I'm still not sure what you're hoping to accomplish.
I'm sorry you can't handle the truth.

You are a round earther and you believe in chemtrails.
Neither of those things are true. (Nor are they words, but I'll leave that alone.)


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
In the topic titled "About that Ice Dome", prolific contributor Sceptimatic made many statements that clarify and extend his ice dome theory.  His ideas received little or no support from other flat earthers.  I think it's important to know whether even flat earthers think Sceptimatic ideas are silly.  Below is a partial list of statements my by Sceptimatic on that thread.  If you are a flat earth supporter, please indicate which ones you think are probably true.

1) The earth is covered by an ice dome.
2) There is no such thing as outer space.
3) What we think are stars, planets, the Moon and other celestial objects are just reflections of things on or in the Earth.
4) The Sun is inside the earth.  Actually, there are two Suns - a dark one and a light one.  The interaction between the two Suns causes the illusion of an eclipse.
5) The law of Conservation of Momentum does not exist.
6) Inertia does not exist.

So then, you have established that some members either agree, or are open to, some of Sceptimatics theories. What now? Are we mad? More indoctrination needed? Or do you respect that human beings are free to believe as they wish?
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 40468
  • Official FE Recruiter
In the topic titled "About that Ice Dome", prolific contributor Sceptimatic made many statements that clarify and extend his ice dome theory.  His ideas received little or no support from other flat earthers.  I think it's important to know whether even flat earthers think Sceptimatic ideas are silly.  Below is a partial list of statements my by Sceptimatic on that thread.  If you are a flat earth supporter, please indicate which ones you think are probably true.

1) The earth is covered by an ice dome.
2) There is no such thing as outer space.
3) What we think are stars, planets, the Moon and other celestial objects are just reflections of things on or in the Earth.
4) The Sun is inside the earth.  Actually, there are two Suns - a dark one and a light one.  The interaction between the two Suns causes the illusion of an eclipse.
5) The law of Conservation of Momentum does not exist.
6) Inertia does not exist.

This is the Flat Earth Society.  It's for people who believe in a flat earth.  It's not the People Who Only Agree With One Flat Earth Model Society.

Do you actually believe that there can be more than one correct model?
I don't think that's what he said, Rama.

No but there is a culture here of FEers tolerating or applauding people who come along with their pet FE theory, even though there clearly can only be one theory and most (all?) of the FE theories are incoherent.  What is the value in propping up a bunch of sloppy ideas?  Surely free-thinking is not an end but rather a means and I sincerely hope that this society is concerned with the truth of the matter.

Should there be a rule against coming up with your own theory? You have to remember this is the forum and it's open to everyone. Most of the people posting their pet theories aren't members of the society, they are just forum members.

The FEers used to have debates amongst themselves, but as you can see the forum has been overrun with kooky chemtrail conspiracy theorist types claiming to be FE. I don't think any of them are FE. They were probably trolling Above Top Secret and decided FES would be a fun place to hang out as well. That's my pet theory!
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Quote
Should there be a rule against coming up with your own theory?

No.

But there should be a rule against calling ideas theories.

None of what is presented here constitutes a theory.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 40468
  • Official FE Recruiter
That would be a bit harsh.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

Quote
Should there be a rule against coming up with your own theory?

No.

But there should be a rule against calling ideas theories.

None of what is presented here constitutes a theory.

Theories are great as long as they are based on facts or can be supported by experiments -- even thought experiments.  But how much time should we really spend debating Scepti's theory that there is a dark sun and a light sun inside the earth and that their interaction causes the appearance of eclipses?  This theory is based on absolutely nothing more than one person's imagination.  And if he were serious about this theory, he could at least propose an experiment or investigation that would confirm it.  To propose a theory but then takes no steps whatsoever to support it is just lazy.
Sceptimatic is a proven liar - he claims to have authored several books but won't reveal their names.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
In the topic titled "About that Ice Dome", prolific contributor Sceptimatic made many statements that clarify and extend his ice dome theory.  His ideas received little or no support from other flat earthers.  I think it's important to know whether even flat earthers think Sceptimatic ideas are silly.  Below is a partial list of statements my by Sceptimatic on that thread.  If you are a flat earth supporter, please indicate which ones you think are probably true.

1) The earth is covered by an ice dome.
2) There is no such thing as outer space.
3) What we think are stars, planets, the Moon and other celestial objects are just reflections of things on or in the Earth.
4) The Sun is inside the earth.  Actually, there are two Suns - a dark one and a light one.  The interaction between the two Suns causes the illusion of an eclipse.
5) The law of Conservation of Momentum does not exist.
6) Inertia does not exist.

This is the Flat Earth Society.  It's for people who believe in a flat earth.  It's not the People Who Only Agree With One Flat Earth Model Society.

Do you actually believe that there can be more than one correct model?
I don't think that's what he said, Rama.

No but there is a culture here of FEers tolerating or applauding people who come along with their pet FE theory, even though there clearly can only be one theory and most (all?) of the FE theories are incoherent.  What is the value in propping up a bunch of sloppy ideas?  Surely free-thinking is not an end but rather a means and I sincerely hope that this society is concerned with the truth of the matter.

Should there be a rule against coming up with your own theory? You have to remember this is the forum and it's open to everyone. Most of the people posting their pet theories aren't members of the society, they are just forum members.

The FEers used to have debates amongst themselves, but as you can see the forum has been overrun with kooky chemtrail conspiracy theorist types claiming to be FE. I don't think any of them are FE. They were probably trolling Above Top Secret and decided FES would be a fun place to hang out as well. That's my pet theory!

No there should not be a rule against coming up with your own theory, but theories that cannot be adequately substantiated should not be given the same respect as one that can.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38770
Should there be a rule against coming up with your own theory?
Of course not, but there shouldn't be any reason for FE'ers to be shy about discussing the strengths and weakness of their theories with other FE'ers either.  If other FE'ers think that Sceptimatic is as full of crap as RE'ers do, then why shouldn't they call him on it?  Constructive criticism, regardless of the source, can only help FET.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
I think it's important to define sceptimatic's inconsequential ramblings on these forums more precisely for what they are.

sceptimatic posts nothing more than his notions of what he thinks constitutes the makeup of our planet and the universe.

A notion is not a hypothesis.  A hypothesis is an evidential explanation for the occurrence of some specified phenomenon.  As sceptimatic is unable to provide any viable evidence for his notions, they do not sustain a valid hypothesis.

And when a hypothesis is supported by observation, replication and peer review, it attains the status of a theory.



EDIT:  Corrected error in terminology. 
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 07:29:28 AM by ausGeoff »

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 40468
  • Official FE Recruiter
I'm pretty sure the FEers of the forum used to get just as annoyed with sceptimatic as you guys do, but I think they've given up and just scroll past his posts, and many of them stopped posting here altogether. The problem is that as long as he isn't breaking the rules, there's not anything that can be done to stop him from attracting all this attention. As soon as he posts in a thread you guys pounce! I'm not sure why, because you know there's nothing you can post that will work to draw him into an intelligent conversation. Pointing out all the flaws in his arguments only causes him to double down. I know he does break the rules from time to time, and I am aware of him being banned a few times for it, but posting his "theories" isn't a rules infraction.


FES has an easygoing moderation policy, you have to do something pretty terrible to get a serious ban, and I don't remember the last time someone was permanently banned. I think that for the most part that is a very good policy, because over moderated forums generally suck (FES briefly went through an over moderated phase, if you can believe it). Having a light moderation policy allows for more free flowing conversation, but it also allows for the annoyances... sometimes you have to take the good with the bad, because the good is worth it.



I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.