circumpolar stars

  • 237 Replies
  • 41012 Views
*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #150 on: February 20, 2015, 01:21:43 PM »
BiJane, you are making a strawman argument. Google it if you have to.
I know what it is. I'm not making one, I'm applying your standard.
Quote
There is no direct evidence for gravity. Just admit this simple fact. Why is this so hard?
By your definition, I'm happy to admit it: because you make it so there is no direct evidence of anything. As I have said.


No I dont. I have said that there is no direct evidence of gravity... that's it. Do you think that putting words in my mouth is going to help your case?
Read the FAQS.

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #151 on: February 20, 2015, 01:24:33 PM »
If you have no direct evidence for gravity, then please say so.

The Cavendish experiment is direct evidence for gravity. It is also admitted to be valid by FE'ers.
Made you look again! I love how Vauxhall can't respond to my posts because it would give away he's looking at them all. I can feel him burning with impotent rage.  ;D
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #152 on: February 20, 2015, 01:30:10 PM »
BiJane, you are making a strawman argument. Google it if you have to.
I know what it is. I'm not making one, I'm applying your standard.
Quote
There is no direct evidence for gravity. Just admit this simple fact. Why is this so hard?
By your definition, I'm happy to admit it: because you make it so there is no direct evidence of anything. As I have said.


No I dont. I have said that there is no direct evidence of gravity... that's it. Do you think that putting words in my mouth is going to help your case?

There is plenty of direct evidence for gravity (like tides), but by your standards you have to see it and poke it before you can believe it.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #153 on: February 20, 2015, 01:30:33 PM »
No I dont. I have said that there is no direct evidence of gravity... that's it. Do you think that putting words in my mouth is going to help your case?
Ignoring several posts worth of conversation doesn't help your case. Your standards for direct evidence of gravity are too high to be reached by anything: alternatives may always be thought of, no matter the topic. Do you disagree? And if so, how? 
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #154 on: February 20, 2015, 01:37:46 PM »
BiJane, please stop. You know why I ignored your cat point. Dont even try to cite that as a failing on my part. Why are you so disingenuous? It's very alarming.

My criteria for direct evidence is the following: could it possibly have any other explanation? If it does, then it is not direct evidence. Seeing it firsthand is just a bonus.

I would believe CongaKogo King of Apes from Mars holding up the Earth with his magical extending staff before gravity. Thats how little direct evidence there is. If you want to dispute the definition of direct evidence then why dont you take it up with someone who fucking cares and/or is as dense as yourselves. I am frankly above it.

Twist and shape the meaning of words all you want, but in the end you're still wrong.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #155 on: February 20, 2015, 01:40:14 PM »
My criteria for direct evidence is the following: could it possibly have any other explanation?
Exactly the problem. Hallucination is always an alternative explanation for 90% of things. Maybe there is no moon or tides, maybe you imagined it: that's one explanation. Same for the cat. Same for any other example you care to mention.
Your criteria is meaningless. That's clear.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #156 on: February 20, 2015, 01:46:05 PM »
BiJane.... Strawma-


You know what, nevermind.

You're wrong.. By your twisted logic your idea of gravity could be a state of mass hallucinations caused by alien chems. Please note that I have not mentioned anything about hallucinations. That is absolutely a product of your deceiving nature. You are a sociopath.

As it stands right now, there is simply not enough evidence and simply too many other explanations for me to accept the theory of gravity.

Modern science has pretty much boiled down to: "God did it". Except replace God with gravity.
Read the FAQS.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #157 on: February 20, 2015, 01:51:10 PM »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #158 on: February 20, 2015, 02:01:36 PM »
Since he's blocked me, would someone else like to tell him the Cavendish experiment is direct evidence for gravity and is admitted by FE'ers?
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #159 on: February 20, 2015, 02:05:40 PM »
You're wrong.. By your twisted logic your idea of gravity could be a state of mass hallucinations caused by alien chems.
Nope: this is your logic. You're the one saying that alternative explanations are enough to prevent something being direct evidence. This is your statement. I'm just saying alternative explanations exist for everything. Again, do you disagree?
If you disagree with one of those statements, say which, say why, don't just appeal to a generic fallacy with no explanation. If this is a straw man, say where and why it misrepresents your definition of direct evidence.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #160 on: February 20, 2015, 02:07:40 PM »
You're wrong.. By your twisted logic your idea of gravity could be a state of mass hallucinations caused by alien chems.
Nope: this is your logic. You're the one saying that alternative explanations are enough to prevent something being direct evidence. This is your statement. I'm just saying alternative explanations exist for everything. Again, do you disagree?
If you disagree with one of those statements, say which, say why, don't just appeal to a generic fallacy with no explanation. If this is a straw man, say where and why it misrepresents your definition of direct evidence.

Please keep telling me what I believe and what I think. It really helps your case.  ::)


And please, BiJane. Don't use the word "fallacy". Everything you post is a fallacy, so you clearly do not understand what that word means. When your posts have some substance then I will reply without insulting your intelligence.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #161 on: February 20, 2015, 02:09:47 PM »
You're wrong.. By your twisted logic your idea of gravity could be a state of mass hallucinations caused by alien chems.
Nope: this is your logic. You're the one saying that alternative explanations are enough to prevent something being direct evidence. This is your statement. I'm just saying alternative explanations exist for everything. Again, do you disagree?
If you disagree with one of those statements, say which, say why, don't just appeal to a generic fallacy with no explanation. If this is a straw man, say where and why it misrepresents your definition of direct evidence.

Please keep telling me what I believe and what I think. It really helps your case.  ::)


And please, BiJane. Don't use the word "fallacy". Everything you post is a fallacy, so you clearly do not understand what that word means. When your posts have some substance then I will reply without insulting your intelligence.
I'm just using what you've already said. Again:

If you disagree with one of those statements, say which, say why, don't just appeal to a generic fallacy with no explanation. If this is a straw man, say where and why it misrepresents your definition of direct evidence.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #162 on: February 20, 2015, 02:13:28 PM »
The collected research and science conducted involving the Flat Earth theory are my reasons for not believing that gravity is what holds the Sun/Moon/Earth in orbit etc. If you need a refresher course on these theories, please see the wiki.

I have explained this already??? There are other explanations. That's why it conflicts with my definition of direct evidence. Also, given my idea of direct evidence, I also do not believe there is any direct evidence of aether or UA. But I've explained all this before.


Why are you making me type this again?    :'(
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #163 on: February 20, 2015, 02:15:48 PM »
The collected research and science conducted involving the Flat Earth theory are my reasons for not believing that gravity is what holds the Sun/Moon/Earth in orbit etc. If you need a refresher course on these theories, please see the wiki.

I have explained this already??? There are other explanations. That's why it conflicts with my definition of direct evidence. Also, given my idea of direct evidence, I also do not believe there is any direct evidence of aether or UA. But I've explained all this before.


Why are you making me type this again?    :'(
why are you engaging in a straw man? I'm saying your definition of direct evidence is meaningless, because there will always be an alternative explanation for anything.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #164 on: February 20, 2015, 02:18:09 PM »
there will always be an alternative explanation for anything.

Within reason.

And there is no strawman in my post. What the hell are you talking about, BiJane? I simply answered your question?


The evidence for you being a sociopath is just piling on, huh?
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #165 on: February 20, 2015, 02:21:27 PM »
there will always be an alternative explanation for anything.

Within reason.
See, this is what you needed to say: an actual response.
So now it's possible to talk. We have the Cavendish experiment, we have the fact you yourself appeal to gravity to explain tides, you just lessen it pointlessly.
Would you care to share your arguments against it, or will they remain ethereal?

Quote
And there is no strawman in my post. What the hell are you talking about, BiJane? I simply answered your question?
How did that remotely answer my question as to your definition of direct evidence? It didn't even touch the right subject.

Quote
The evidence for you being a sociopath is just piling on, huh?
And the evidence for you being a eight-year-old is doing likewise.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #166 on: February 20, 2015, 02:31:37 PM »
See, this is what you needed to say: an actual response.

No. I don't see this, BiJane. This was my contention the whole damn time, you just continued putting words in my mouth until you thought you had won the argument. You made a series of assumptions. That's it. That is not how you conduct a scientific debate. Do better next time.


So now it's possible to talk. We have the Cavendish experiment, we have the fact you yourself appeal to gravity to explain tides, you just lessen it pointlessly.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, hm? I gave gravity as an example for tides, yes, but I also added that it is not confirmed and could be wrong. My personal explanation for tides involves aetheric eddies caused by the overflow from the bottom of the Earth disc. But that's not relevant to what we are discussing.


Regarding the Cavendish experiment: the experiment begins with a false premise (objects with mass are attracted to each other). Therefore the results are invalid.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #167 on: February 20, 2015, 02:36:34 PM »
No. I don't see this, BiJane. This was my contention the whole damn time, you just continued putting words in my mouth until you thought you had won the argument. You made a series of assumptions. That's it. That is not how you conduct a scientific debate. Do better next time.
If they were assumptions, the obvious thing to do is to actually say so rather than carry on a nonsensical debate. A scientific debate is not carried out by one party refusing to correct a mistake.


Quote
Regarding the Cavendish experiment: the experiment begins with a false premise (objects with mass are attracted to each other). Therefore the results are invalid.
...do you understand the difference between a premise and a conclusion?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #168 on: February 20, 2015, 02:51:59 PM »
No. I don't see this, BiJane. This was my contention the whole damn time, you just continued putting words in my mouth until you thought you had won the argument. You made a series of assumptions. That's it. That is not how you conduct a scientific debate. Do better next time.
If they were assumptions, the obvious thing to do is to actually say so rather than carry on a nonsensical debate. A scientific debate is not carried out by one party refusing to correct a mistake.


Quote
Regarding the Cavendish experiment: the experiment begins with a false premise (objects with mass are attracted to each other). Therefore the results are invalid.
...do you understand the difference between a premise and a conclusion?

Do you understand that the Cavendish experiment started with a false premise and based its conclusion on that false premise? If your premise is flawed, your results are going to be flawed. That's basic stuff, BiJane.
Read the FAQS.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #169 on: February 20, 2015, 02:53:06 PM »
No. I don't see this, BiJane. This was my contention the whole damn time, you just continued putting words in my mouth until you thought you had won the argument. You made a series of assumptions. That's it. That is not how you conduct a scientific debate. Do better next time.
If they were assumptions, the obvious thing to do is to actually say so rather than carry on a nonsensical debate. A scientific debate is not carried out by one party refusing to correct a mistake.


Quote
Regarding the Cavendish experiment: the experiment begins with a false premise (objects with mass are attracted to each other). Therefore the results are invalid.
...do you understand the difference between a premise and a conclusion?

Do you understand that the Cavendish experiment started with a false premise and based its conclusion on that false premise? If your premise is flawed, your results are going to be flawed. That's basic stuff, BiJane.
And gravitational lensing?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #170 on: February 20, 2015, 02:54:37 PM »
Do you understand that the Cavendish experiment started with a false premise and based its conclusion on that false premise? If your premise is flawed, your results are going to be flawed. That's basic stuff, BiJane.
If the premise is false, how could it get a value for said attraction? Do you have an alternative explanation for that? If so, please show that it is actually more likely than gravity.
We're all waiting.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #171 on: February 20, 2015, 02:58:12 PM »
We're all waiting.

What are you waiting for exactly? Because you're probably going to be waiting for a long time.

When you have a false premise based on RE maths, then you're going to get a false conclusion based on RE maths. It's that simple.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #172 on: February 20, 2015, 03:02:59 PM »
We're all waiting.

What are you waiting for exactly? Because you're probably going to be waiting for a long time.

When you have a false premise based on RE maths, then you're going to get a false conclusion based on RE maths. It's that simple.

Do you ever actually read the posts people write, or do you just wait for a chance to jump in with pointless stories?
Once again:

If the premise is false, how could it get a value for said attraction? Do you have an alternative explanation for that? If so, please show that it is actually more likely than gravity.
We're all waiting.

Saying that there is no attraction between objects does not explain where the value comes from. Maths doesn't work like that. Where did the value come from?

Also, other people have pointed out various good points. I think the latest is gravitational lensing. Are you going to acknowledge them?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #173 on: February 20, 2015, 03:06:15 PM »
We're all waiting.

What are you waiting for exactly? Because you're probably going to be waiting for a long time.

When you have a false premise based on RE maths, then you're going to get a false conclusion based on RE maths. It's that simple.

Do you ever actually read the posts people write, or do you just wait for a chance to jump in with pointless stories?
Once again:

If the premise is false, how could it get a value for said attraction? Do you have an alternative explanation for that? If so, please show that it is actually more likely than gravity.
We're all waiting.

Saying that there is no attraction between objects does not explain where the value comes from. Maths doesn't work like that. Where did the value come from?

Also, other people have pointed out various good points. I think the latest is gravitational lensing. Are you going to acknowledge them?
He must have me blocked.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #174 on: February 20, 2015, 03:07:43 PM »
I am going to acknowledge all the points in time. I am working while responding to you, so I am sorry if my answers are not necessarily satisfactory.


If it's ok, could you explain the Cavendish Experiment to me with your own words? How they did? What tools they used? I just want to make sure you have a full understanding about what you're debating before I take the time to respond.


He must have me blocked.

You're not blocked. I just haven't had much time to respond properly. I will get to it though.
Read the FAQS.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #175 on: February 20, 2015, 03:08:16 PM »
When you have a false premise based on RE maths, then you're going to get a false conclusion based on RE maths. It's that simple.

If RE math is false then it can easily be disproved by making a prediction with it and watching something different happen, but from my experience RE math has been really accurate.  What is an example of RE math which you believe is false and can easily be disproved (or proven) with an experiment?
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #176 on: February 20, 2015, 04:22:32 PM »
Do you understand that the Cavendish experiment started with a false premise and based its conclusion on that false premise?

Vauxhall shows here that he doesn't understand that the purpose of an experiment is to test a theory, not to prove it. The experiment doesn't have an opinion one way or the other. If gravity did not exist, the Cavendish experiment would not work. It doesn't magically work if gravity is wrong but the person conducting the experiment believes in it hard enough.

But I'l leave the last word to our esteemed "moderator":

The Cavendish Experement proved that massive objects attract each other.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #177 on: February 21, 2015, 05:24:31 PM »
Quote
Please drop this whole cat point as well. It's making you look desperate. You're obviously fumbling here.
Sure: when you tell me how you are assured it isn't one great big hallucination or pretension. It's an illustration you've yet to acknowledge. You're saying that everything that's been given to you as proof of gravity isn't enough because it could be explained away by numerous other proposed concepts: but that's true of everything. Do you disagree, and if so, why?


I've decided to entertain BiJane's massive strawman argument for laughs.

May I present.... Digit, my cat. He is angry that I made him do this, as you can tell.



Satisfied now, BiJane? If you think it's shopped, please show proof of it being shopped. If you think it's a halucination, well... I'm sure everyone else can see the picture so that's not a valid excuse anymore. 

Now that your strawman has been utterly maimed: could you please present us with direct evidence for gravity? A picture of gravity would do nicely, I think.

I'll wait. :)
« Last Edit: February 21, 2015, 05:32:19 PM by Vauxhall »
Read the FAQS.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #178 on: February 21, 2015, 06:18:16 PM »
A picture of gravity would do nicely, I think.

How do you think it would be possible to photograph a force (like gravity)?  Is it possible to photograph magnetism?  Does the inability to photograph magnetism mean that magnetism doesn't exist?  Does the lack of an explanation for magnetism mean that it doesn't exist?  It's also possible to take the flat earther approach and say that the aether is somehow responsible for magnetism, so by your standards magnetism is probably not real.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Jet Fission

  • 519
  • NASA shill
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #179 on: February 21, 2015, 07:31:06 PM »

Prove this photograph was shopped or is fake.
To a flat earth theorist, being a "skeptic" is to have confirmation bias.
Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.