standards

  • 67 Replies
  • 14920 Views
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: standards
« Reply #30 on: April 06, 2015, 01:33:15 PM »
elimist, my model has been refined multiple times, thanks in part due to such comments as conker's. i would suggest you start near the bottom of page two, where dual earth theory is fully outlined. after that point, also, there is a post describing aether in detail, and how there is no assumption in its existence. everything about it is a deduced trait of space, which we know exists.

Except the fact that space has not been observed to have any of the properties you say it has.
they have, you just reject all examples because you cling to fantasy.
also, the effects of relativity hadn't been observed when einstein came up with it. logical deduction and thought experiments are still valid ways to draw conclusions.

The effect of GR is gravity, which is observed everywhere. Einstein was describing the "why" behind gravity, an already observed effect, and his theory was able to predict an addition of 43 arc seconds per century to the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Your theory does not explain any event that is observed in reality. It describes aetheric whirlpools and areas of high and low density aether, but these can't be proved to exist empirically.

You say you gave examples, and you did, but they don't describe anything in reality.

do you see how much your arguments rely on presupposing round earth theory? my model describes the 'why' behind an already observed effect. you just insist that it must be wrong because you cling to round earth fantasy: that is no argument.
i mean, if you want to somehow insist space exists in concentration everywhere, go ahead, but not only are you refuting einstein, but you're ignoring common sense.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: standards
« Reply #31 on: April 06, 2015, 01:48:41 PM »
Round earth FACT has been based upon years of physical observation and study. Not to mention....it's real.

Flat earth ideas have been based upon.....some random people sitting at their computers coming up with baseless ideas. Not to mention....it's complete crap.


So yeah....they are held to different standards. Because they should be.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

Re: standards
« Reply #32 on: April 06, 2015, 01:49:36 PM »
Dual earth bullcrap was thought up in less than a month and didn't require any physical observations or real world studies.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
Re: standards
« Reply #33 on: April 06, 2015, 02:46:36 PM »
elimist, my model has been refined multiple times, thanks in part due to such comments as conker's. i would suggest you start near the bottom of page two, where dual earth theory is fully outlined. after that point, also, there is a post describing aether in detail, and how there is no assumption in its existence. everything about it is a deduced trait of space, which we know exists.

Except the fact that space has not been observed to have any of the properties you say it has.
they have, you just reject all examples because you cling to fantasy.
also, the effects of relativity hadn't been observed when einstein came up with it. logical deduction and thought experiments are still valid ways to draw conclusions.

The effect of GR is gravity, which is observed everywhere. Einstein was describing the "why" behind gravity, an already observed effect, and his theory was able to predict an addition of 43 arc seconds per century to the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Your theory does not explain any event that is observed in reality. It describes aetheric whirlpools and areas of high and low density aether, but these can't be proved to exist empirically.

You say you gave examples, and you did, but they don't describe anything in reality.

do you see how much your arguments rely on presupposing round earth theory? my model describes the 'why' behind an already observed effect.

Space has not been observed to form whirlpools or be in higher concentrations.

Quote
you just insist that it must be wrong because you cling to round earth fantasy: that is no argument.

I insist it is wrong because you have not proved these things to exist. Forming whirlpools and have "concentrations" is not an observed property of space. If you want it to be an observed property of space, provide us with an image, or recording of this occurring.

Quote
i mean, if you want to somehow insist space exists in concentration everywhere, go ahead, but not only are you refuting einstein

Einstein did not believe or propose that space existed in concentrations anywhere.
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: standards
« Reply #34 on: April 06, 2015, 03:13:34 PM »
it is a waste of time talking to any of you. umurweird never adds anything to any discussion, he just insults and you, elimist, are starting to just repeat yourself. when you don't assume your round earth fantasy with no good reason, we can make observations that, for example, somethng must govern the movements of the stars, sun and moon.
as for concentrations, that is logical deduction. space is not nothing, so space exists: if it exists, it must exist in a set concentration. maybe that concentration is constant everywhere, but if you're assuming such regularity, it's you who needs to give evidence, not me.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
Re: standards
« Reply #35 on: April 06, 2015, 03:42:27 PM »
you, elimist, are starting to just repeat yourself. when you don't assume your round earth fantasy with no good reason, we can make observations that, for example, somethng must govern the movements of the stars, sun and moon.
Yes, but the mechanism for why this happens in your theory is not evidenced. This is my problem. The fact that some principle governs celestial movement does not mean your theory is correct. You have to prove your mechanism exists.

Quote
as for concentrations, that is logical deduction. space is not nothing, so space exists: if it exists, it must exist in a set concentration.

No, because space (as it has been observed) does not form concentrations, does not aggregate, does not act like like any system because it is not a system. It can only concentrate if it is made up of parts. It is not made up of parts. The high/low concentration principle has only been observed in matter. Just because something exists does not mean it has a concentration. If you want to say that it does, prove it in such a way that no other theory can explain the same thing.

Quote
maybe that concentration is constant everywhere, but if you're assuming such regularity, it's you who needs to give evidence, not me.
There is no observed concentration, because spacetime is one single thing. What I need from you is to prove that it forms concentrations, through some empirical evidence.
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: standards
« Reply #36 on: April 07, 2015, 02:47:36 AM »
you, elimist, are starting to just repeat yourself. when you don't assume your round earth fantasy with no good reason, we can make observations that, for example, somethng must govern the movements of the stars, sun and moon.
Yes, but the mechanism for why this happens in your theory is not evidenced. This is my problem. The fact that some principle governs celestial movement does not mean your theory is correct. You have to prove your mechanism exists.

Quote
as for concentrations, that is logical deduction. space is not nothing, so space exists: if it exists, it must exist in a set concentration.

No, because space (as it has been observed) does not form concentrations, does not aggregate, does not act like like any system because it is not a system. It can only concentrate if it is made up of parts. It is not made up of parts. The high/low concentration principle has only been observed in matter. Just because something exists does not mean it has a concentration. If you want to say that it does, prove it in such a way that no other theory can explain the same thing.

Quote
maybe that concentration is constant everywhere, but if you're assuming such regularity, it's you who needs to give evidence, not me.
There is no observed concentration, because spacetime is one single thing. What I need from you is to prove that it forms concentrations, through some empirical evidence.

the evidence is by observation, yet again. when a phenomenon is explained, that qualifies as evidence for the explanation. actually what i need to show is that it is the most likely possibility: and as it does not make the same dpeth of assumption as gravity, it is.
you are asserting again. why do you think in material terms? please give a reason for why, for example, the high to low law only exists in matter don't base your argument on asserton: i am waiting for evidence. if you insist space is some exception to a universal fact and law, please provide some justification.
unless you're centuries out of date, you will agree heat is not made out of particles: how then can some areas be hotter than others? sounds like concentration to me.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: standards
« Reply #37 on: April 07, 2015, 05:48:28 AM »
why are round earthers and flat earthers held to such different standards?

a round earther has insisted i must be comparable to einstein if my model is to be accurate. i have been asked to deduce a whole mathematical system, reliant on resources that would cost millions if not billions, and months of my life to do well.
round earthers do nothing except resort to google, and not ne of them has ever added to the fantasy they so desperately defend.

how, exactly, does any of that remotely make sense? you demand miracles from flat earthers, and then do nothing yourselves.
it all sounds like desperation, to me.

We began our expedition fundraiser in response to the countless demands from round-earthers to "simply charter an expedition." So I took the price of the Scott Expedition from the last century and scaled the cost to today's dollars and started a fundraiser. Well this really twisted the round-earthers up. When we began doing the very thing they demanded, they began howling and screaming bloody murder; even going so far as to threaten lawsuits is we did not immediately cease and desist our fundraiser.

Whatsmore, the round-earthers began demanding more and more. They insisted we disclose the names of the scientists involved, they demanded we make a detailed budget, they insisted upon a maliciously detailed mission plan, they called for transparency, and more. Missing any of these items was a deal-breaker yet the round-earthers still maintained that chartering an expedition was simple. Like a weekend trip to the beach.

They say no one will donate till everything down to the fleas on the sled dogs are counted, but I suspect that they won't donate even then.

Re: standards
« Reply #38 on: April 07, 2015, 06:41:21 AM »
JRowe, you cannot invoke Occam's Razor when FET or DET relies on the most ridiculously intricate conspiracy cover ups imaginable. That is hardly making the least assumptions.

*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
Re: standards
« Reply #39 on: April 07, 2015, 06:46:07 AM »
you, elimist, are starting to just repeat yourself. when you don't assume your round earth fantasy with no good reason, we can make observations that, for example, somethng must govern the movements of the stars, sun and moon.
Yes, but the mechanism for why this happens in your theory is not evidenced. This is my problem. The fact that some principle governs celestial movement does not mean your theory is correct. You have to prove your mechanism exists.

Quote
as for concentrations, that is logical deduction. space is not nothing, so space exists: if it exists, it must exist in a set concentration.

No, because space (as it has been observed) does not form concentrations, does not aggregate, does not act like like any system because it is not a system. It can only concentrate if it is made up of parts. It is not made up of parts. The high/low concentration principle has only been observed in matter. Just because something exists does not mean it has a concentration. If you want to say that it does, prove it in such a way that no other theory can explain the same thing.

Quote
maybe that concentration is constant everywhere, but if you're assuming such regularity, it's you who needs to give evidence, not me.
There is no observed concentration, because spacetime is one single thing. What I need from you is to prove that it forms concentrations, through some empirical evidence.

the evidence is by observation, yet again. when a phenomenon is explained, that qualifies as evidence for the explanation.

No, when a phenomena is explained, that is not evidence for the explanation.

Quote
actually what i need to show is that it is the most likely possibility: and as it does not make the same dpeth of assumption as gravity, it is.
I'm not saying I agree with gravity, I just can't see what assumptions gravity makes.

Quote
you are asserting again. why do you think in material terms? please give a reason for why, for example, the high to low law only exists in matter don't base your argument on asserton: i am waiting for evidence.

You acknowledge that matter is made up of subatomic particles? You acknowledge that space is not? Then it is simple. Only things that have component parts have been observed to have. concentration. Since any experiment I do is untrustworthy, I want you to conduct an experiment. Fill a container with hot water. Not too hot. You acknowledge that water is made up of molecules? And that heat can attach itself to those molecules? I assume you say yes. Now, pour this water on your hand, let it sit for about 3 minutes. Then feel the water. If you conducted the experiment correctly, the hand the water is on should be hot, and the water itself should be lukewarm or cold. This is because the laws of motion and physics acting upon the heated particles caused them to touch your hand, causing them to give their heat to your hand This is my hypothesis. If it is correct, I am right that matter, and things like heat attached to matter, can move from high concentrations to low. Now, I propose an experiment for you to determine whether space is made of constituent parts, and can move from high concentrations to low. Here it is: Take a piece of spacetime (this should be fairly easy for you due to the fact that space is easily malleable in your theory and you have a personal connection with the aether). When you remove this piece of spacetime (this should prove space is made of component parts), a gap of complete nonexistence should appear in it's place. If space does move from high concentrations to low, then space should move to close this gap. This should create some observable effect, such as a ripple through the universe, a small explosion within the vicinity etc. (P.S make sure you're out of the way as soon as you remove the piece of spacetime). Either record this observable effect, or the gap of nonexistence itself, and post it here. This will prove your theory to be at least partially correct.

 
Quote
if you insist space is some exception to a universal fact and law, please provide some justification.

See above.

Quote
unless you're centuries out of date, you will agree heat is not made out of particles: how then can some areas be hotter than others? sounds like concentration to me.

As I explained above, the heat is attached to matter, which transfers the heat to other matter as the laws of physics move its component parts around.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2015, 06:50:32 AM by The Ellimist »
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: standards
« Reply #40 on: April 07, 2015, 07:28:37 AM »
We began our expedition fundraiser in response to the countless demands from round-earthers to "simply charter an expedition."
Such as buy a ticket to the South Pole which are readily available for less than four million dollars.

Quote
Whatsmore, the round-earthers began demanding more and more. They insisted we disclose the names of the scientists involved, they demanded we make a detailed budget, they insisted upon a maliciously detailed mission plan, they called for transparency, and more.
If you're arranging an expedition, saying what you're going to do is the most basic of requirements, especially if you're asking for millions. A budget is the first step (how do you know you'll need four million with today's technology, prices and your aim?), and when you're asking for millions, transparency is common courtesy. And we don't want a 'maliciously detailed' mission plan, we want any kind of plan. As it is you've said nothing beyond "We are going to do stuff!"

Quote
yet the round-earthers still maintained that chartering an expedition was simple. Like a weekend trip to the beach.
Well given that people were generally talking about taking existing flights or boat trips, that is simple. You were proposing something entirely different: and the problems with it have been pointed out to you multiple times. Given that you have't altered the expedition whatsoever, insisting your initial, rushed draft is and will remain good enough (Pretty much never the case, anywhere), the obvous conclusion is that you're not listening, and that you don't care.

Put up or shut up. If you aren't going to put any effort into the expedition (which no one proposed you do), why do you expect anyone else to?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: standards
« Reply #41 on: April 07, 2015, 07:30:24 AM »
We began our expedition fundraiser in response to the countless demands from round-earthers to "simply charter an expedition." So I took the price of the Scott Expedition from the last century and scaled the cost to today's dollars and started a fundraiser.

Now there's a realistic cost model.  ::)

Quote
They say no one will donate till everything down to the fleas on the sled dogs are counted, but I suspect that they won't donate even then.

Who said that? Oh, and Scott didn't use sled dogs; that was one of his mistakes.

I just love how you created a "campaign" that's guaranteed to fail so you can point to it (like you just did) and say "See. We're trying." Sure you are.  ::)

I said it in that thread and elsewhere, and will repeat it here: buy some old surveying equipment, learn to use it, and map one of the US plains states (I suggested Iowa but any of several will do) to see if you really need to account for curvature when mapping large areas. It'll be a hella lot cheaper, easier, and safer than finding a large wooden boat and crew and sailing to Antarctica. But that's not the point at all, is it?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: standards
« Reply #42 on: April 07, 2015, 09:58:52 AM »
when a phenomenon is explained, that means the proposal may indeed be the explanation. what it requires, is fewer assumptions than the opposition. as my proposal requires none, as we know space exists, and the rest is a logical deduction of that fact, that means it should be accepted.
at the very least, you must concede that. the only thing i can imagine you're questioning, is my deduction. however, your responses have been no more than assertion.

heat is not 'attached' to matter, as that implies it has some material existence. if you believe the sun's heat reaches us through a vacuum, then that is not true. heat exists with no matter: and it still exists in different concentrations. this is all a simple fact.
i do not possess the means to cut spacetime. if you would like an example, even in round earth theory, of things beng drawn towards gaps in space, however, i can happily oblige: black holes. my theory simply explains why that occurs, rather than handwaving and saying no more than "this is what we observe," with no answer for the crucial why.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: standards
« Reply #43 on: April 07, 2015, 10:00:05 AM »
JRowe, you cannot invoke Occam's Razor when FET or DET relies on the most ridiculously intricate conspiracy cover ups imaginable. That is hardly making the least assumptions.

the conspiracy is a conclusion. it is not an assumption.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: standards
« Reply #44 on: April 07, 2015, 10:02:03 AM »
the conspiracy is a conclusion. it is not an assumption.

A conclusion requires evidence.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: standards
« Reply #45 on: April 07, 2015, 10:03:37 AM »
the conspiracy is a conclusion. it is not an assumption.

A conclusion requires evidence.

there is plenty of it if you accept dual earth theory (space travel would be impossible, the moon would be too hot to land on, people claim to have done both), and you should accept dual earth theory because it explains observations without unnecessary assumptions and only logical deduction
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: standards
« Reply #46 on: April 07, 2015, 10:14:52 AM »
the conspiracy is a conclusion. it is not an assumption.

A conclusion requires evidence.

there is plenty of it if you accept dual earth theory (space travel would be impossible, the moon would be too hot to land on, people claim to have done both), and you should accept dual earth theory because it explains observations without unnecessary assumptions and only logical deduction

By unnecessary assumptions do you mean our rediculous ideas that 99.99999999% of the world's population is not in on a masive global conspiracy and that not literally everything we are told is a lie?  What a crazy assumption.

[/sarcasm]
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: standards
« Reply #47 on: April 07, 2015, 10:18:57 AM »
the conspiracy is a conclusion. it is not an assumption.

A conclusion requires evidence.

there is plenty of it if you accept dual earth theory (space travel would be impossible, the moon would be too hot to land on, people claim to have done both), and you should accept dual earth theory because it explains observations without unnecessary assumptions and only logical deduction

By unnecessary assumptions do you mean our rediculous ideas that 99.99999999% of the world's population is not in on a masive global conspiracy and that not literally everything we are told is a lie?  What a crazy assumption.

[/sarcasm]

considering that no one has ever proposed that, i agree that would be an unecessary assumption.
to say that companies do not want to turn a profit, or that just because someone is rich means they are incapable of lying, that is an unnecessary assumption.

if you want to use statistics though, a large percentage of the world agree the moon landings were faked. or does consensus only mean something when you get to appeal to it?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: standards
« Reply #48 on: April 07, 2015, 10:35:05 AM »
JRowe, you cannot invoke Occam's Razor when FET or DET relies on the most ridiculously intricate conspiracy cover ups imaginable. That is hardly making the least assumptions.

the conspiracy is a conclusion. it is not an assumption.

There exists no evidence for the cover up, therefore it is an assumption. Just like aether and its properties.

There is however evidence of a round earth. The tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of photos clearly showing a spherical earth taken from not only Nasa but from the amateur astronomer to the professionnal one. Photos taken from hundreds of space agencies worldwide, both private and public. This is where I again stress that the conspiracy is the weakest link in FET or DET. There is not one iota of evidence for this cover up. Not one FE-er is able to conclusively disprove any image of the spherical earth. Yet without this conspiracy, your denpressure, aether, bendy light or whatnot vanishes.  You cannot conclude there is a conspiracy simply because ou believe in aether.

Re: standards
« Reply #49 on: April 07, 2015, 10:39:07 AM »
the conspiracy is a conclusion. it is not an assumption.

A conclusion requires evidence.

there is plenty of it if you accept dual earth theory (space travel would be impossible, the moon would be too hot to land on, people claim to have done both), and you should accept dual earth theory because it explains observations without unnecessary assumptions and only logical deduction

By unnecessary assumptions do you mean our rediculous ideas that 99.99999999% of the world's population is not in on a masive global conspiracy and that not literally everything we are told is a lie?  What a crazy assumption.

[/sarcasm]

considering that no one has ever proposed that, i agree that would be an unecessary assumption.
to say that companies do not want to turn a profit, or that just because someone is rich means they are incapable of lying, that is an unnecessary assumption.

if you want to use statistics though, a large percentage of the world agree the moon landings were faked. or does consensus only mean something when you get to appeal to it?

What is this large percentage? Who did the survey and compilation of this statistic?

Re: standards
« Reply #50 on: April 07, 2015, 11:04:57 AM »
Still debating with this troll ? Don't feed him, he already showed you he has less clue in physics and astronomy than a 6 grader.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2015, 11:06:58 AM by Gefn »

Re: standards
« Reply #51 on: April 07, 2015, 11:24:42 AM »
Still debating with this troll ? Don't feed him, he already showed you he has less clue in physics and astronomy than a 6 grader.
Entertainment purposes. The day at the office can be longer than usual.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: standards
« Reply #52 on: April 07, 2015, 12:32:53 PM »
JRowe, you cannot invoke Occam's Razor when FET or DET relies on the most ridiculously intricate conspiracy cover ups imaginable. That is hardly making the least assumptions.

the conspiracy is a conclusion. it is not an assumption.

There exists no evidence for the cover up, therefore it is an assumption. Just like aether and its properties.

There is however evidence of a round earth. The tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of photos clearly showing a spherical earth taken from not only Nasa but from the amateur astronomer to the professionnal one. Photos taken from hundreds of space agencies worldwide, both private and public. This is where I again stress that the conspiracy is the weakest link in FET or DET. There is not one iota of evidence for this cover up. Not one FE-er is able to conclusively disprove any image of the spherical earth. Yet without this conspiracy, your denpressure, aether, bendy light or whatnot vanishes.  You cannot conclude there is a conspiracy simply because ou believe in aether.

circular argument. really?
"we know the earth's round, because there's no cover-up, because they say the earth is round!"
genius.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
Re: standards
« Reply #53 on: April 07, 2015, 02:34:23 PM »
JRowe, you cannot invoke Occam's Razor when FET or DET relies on the most ridiculously intricate conspiracy cover ups imaginable. That is hardly making the least assumptions.

the conspiracy is a conclusion. it is not an assumption.

There exists no evidence for the cover up, therefore it is an assumption. Just like aether and its properties.

There is however evidence of a round earth. The tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of photos clearly showing a spherical earth taken from not only Nasa but from the amateur astronomer to the professionnal one. Photos taken from hundreds of space agencies worldwide, both private and public. This is where I again stress that the conspiracy is the weakest link in FET or DET. There is not one iota of evidence for this cover up. Not one FE-er is able to conclusively disprove any image of the spherical earth. Yet without this conspiracy, your denpressure, aether, bendy light or whatnot vanishes.  You cannot conclude there is a conspiracy simply because ou believe in aether.

circular argument. really?
"we know the earth's round, because there's no cover-up, because they say the earth is round!"
genius.

No, we know there is no cover up because of Occam's Razor. You know, the principle to pretend to use to troll us?
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: standards
« Reply #54 on: April 07, 2015, 02:48:44 PM »
JRowe, you cannot invoke Occam's Razor when FET or DET relies on the most ridiculously intricate conspiracy cover ups imaginable. That is hardly making the least assumptions.

the conspiracy is a conclusion. it is not an assumption.

There exists no evidence for the cover up, therefore it is an assumption. Just like aether and its properties.

There is however evidence of a round earth. The tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of photos clearly showing a spherical earth taken from not only Nasa but from the amateur astronomer to the professionnal one. Photos taken from hundreds of space agencies worldwide, both private and public. This is where I again stress that the conspiracy is the weakest link in FET or DET. There is not one iota of evidence for this cover up. Not one FE-er is able to conclusively disprove any image of the spherical earth. Yet without this conspiracy, your denpressure, aether, bendy light or whatnot vanishes.  You cannot conclude there is a conspiracy simply because ou believe in aether.

circular argument. really?
"we know the earth's round, because there's no cover-up, because they say the earth is round!"
genius.

No, we know there is no cover up because of Occam's Razor. You know, the principle to pretend to use to troll us?

try again ausgeoff, the existence of the conspiracy is a conclusion: as such, it is not an assumption, any more than it is an assumption to say that you don't die when you fall asleep. it is a conclusion drawn from observations that lead to a flat earth, in the first case, and the fact you are still alive, in the second.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
Re: standards
« Reply #55 on: April 07, 2015, 02:52:58 PM »
JRowe, you cannot invoke Occam's Razor when FET or DET relies on the most ridiculously intricate conspiracy cover ups imaginable. That is hardly making the least assumptions.

the conspiracy is a conclusion. it is not an assumption.

There exists no evidence for the cover up, therefore it is an assumption. Just like aether and its properties.

There is however evidence of a round earth. The tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of photos clearly showing a spherical earth taken from not only Nasa but from the amateur astronomer to the professionnal one. Photos taken from hundreds of space agencies worldwide, both private and public. This is where I again stress that the conspiracy is the weakest link in FET or DET. There is not one iota of evidence for this cover up. Not one FE-er is able to conclusively disprove any image of the spherical earth. Yet without this conspiracy, your denpressure, aether, bendy light or whatnot vanishes.  You cannot conclude there is a conspiracy simply because ou believe in aether.

circular argument. really?
"we know the earth's round, because there's no cover-up, because they say the earth is round!"
genius.

No, we know there is no cover up because of Occam's Razor. You know, the principle to pretend to use to troll us?

try again ausgeoff, the existence of the conspiracy is a conclusion: as such, it is not an assumption, any more than it is an assumption to say that you don't die when you fall asleep. it is a conclusion drawn from observations that lead to a flat earth, in the first case, and the fact you are still alive, in the second.

I wonder how hard you can troll scepti. There is no evidence of a conspiracy, so it is assumed. There is no evidence that space has the properties you are suggesting, which means your theory is completely false. If you are not trolling, take comfort in the fact that you will always be right in your head  ;D
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 

Re: standards
« Reply #56 on: April 08, 2015, 04:37:51 AM »
I observed a rainbow therefore I conclude leprechauns exist.

Scepti logic

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: standards
« Reply #57 on: April 08, 2015, 05:04:01 AM »
purposefully trying to irritate me with dishonesty, and failing to add anything to the discussion.
how you can think yourself as intelligent is beyond me.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: standards
« Reply #58 on: April 08, 2015, 06:08:41 AM »
purposefully trying to irritate me with dishonesty, and failing to add anything to the discussion.
how you can think yourself as intelligent is beyond me.

Dishonesty? Your affirming the consequent of something you cannot even prove.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: standards
« Reply #59 on: April 08, 2015, 07:18:05 AM »
purposefully trying to irritate me with dishonesty, and failing to add anything to the discussion.
how you can think yourself as intelligent is beyond me.

Dishonesty? Your affirming the consequent of something you cannot even prove.

well you're lying about who i am, for once. i tried ignoring it, now it's just grown tiresome. i do ot like having my theories attributed to someone else, i put a great deal of work into them. ask the moderators to compare ip addresses, if you want evidence. i have made that challenge before. clearly no one is interested in truth.
you have also ignored basic, logical and observational evidence which i have pointed out before. you seem to think ignoring evidence makes you clever.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.