Can you disprove that the Earth is round?

  • 56 Replies
  • 9897 Views
Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« on: October 21, 2015, 10:50:39 AM »
An interesting question that occurred to me while reading some proof about flat earth theory was that all of the proof offered up seems to talk about disproving events which prove Earth's roundness. So I wanted to know: can anyone disprove a round Earth itself?
I don't mean disproving things that prove roundness (the Coriolis effect, Lunar eclipses etc). I mean logical proof that the Earth is flat, not round.
I'm interested to see what you guys think.  ;)     
Part of the conspiracy. Illuminati, Lizard men or just plain crazy. Take your pick, all three are on this forum.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2015, 03:23:17 PM »
I have a $250 challenge for any flat earther to point out one thing that we expect to see on a round Earth that we don't observe in reality.  It's been a few months now and still no winners, and the few flat earthers that do enter are discoraged pretty quickly after their proposition is either observed in reality or not actually expected on a round Earth.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2015, 04:40:27 PM »
How can anyone 'disprove' anything?  We can only examine all of the evidence and come to a logical conclusion about the shape of the Earth.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2015, 11:56:37 PM »
How can anyone 'disprove' anything?  We can only examine all of the evidence and come to a logical conclusion about the shape of the Earth.

You can disprove a model of it makes predictions that are not observed in reality.  For example: flat Earth theory predicts that the Antarctic midnight Sun and Sunsets shouldn't happen so we know that theory is wrong, but no flat earther can find any contradictions between theory and reality in the round Earth model.  Therefore logic dictates that Earth is round.  Why are you still a flat earther anyway?
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2015, 02:15:42 AM »
How can anyone 'disprove' anything?  We can only examine all of the evidence and come to a logical conclusion about the shape of the Earth.

You can disprove a model of it makes predictions that are not observed in reality.  For example: flat Earth theory predicts that the Antarctic midnight Sun and Sunsets shouldn't happen so we know that theory is wrong, but no flat earther can find any contradictions between theory and reality in the round Earth model.  Therefore logic dictates that Earth is round.  Why are you still a flat earther anyway?

According to round Earth theory, the universe should have begun collapsing under its own gravitation a long time ago, yet this is not what is observed.  Give my $250 to a good cause of your own choosing.  Thanks. 

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2015, 07:49:05 AM »
According to round Earth theory, the universe should have begun collapsing under its own gravitation a long time ago, yet this is not what is observed.  Give my $250 to a good cause of your own choosing.  Thanks.

Einstein actually predicted the existence of what he called the cosmological constant when he derived relativity.  The cosmological constant is basically a force of sorts that could push galaxies apart.  At the time the belief was that the universe was eternal and unchanging, so Einstein assumed that the cosmological constant had a value that made the universe be static.  After the discovery that the universe was expanding Einstein called this his biggest blunder and noted that the cosmological constant is probably zero.  More recently though it was found that the universe's expansion is accelerating and that is consistent with the cosmological constant having a value larger then Einstein suspected.  The mechanism behind it is currently unknown, but it was predicted before it was discovered and therefore does not contradict round Earth predictions.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2015, 08:19:36 AM »
Define 'disprove'
A model can't be contradicted if you have an army willing to make an excuse at every flaw. The formula giverning gravity was disproven, but dark matter was supposed. The shape of the Sun disproved the RE model, until new excuses and forces were invoked. It's always possible to make an excuse.
In practise, a disproof is not done by showing a problem with a model A, it is done by showing that a model B which cannot be reconciled with A is much more likely to be true.

If the latter is what you're asking then yes, I can do that, but not in the space of one post. It would take outlining and analyzing a theory (from scratch), followed by comparing it. It's further complicated by how few people here are interested in expending any effort to learn FET.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2015, 09:51:51 AM »
You can not disprove reality- the earth is a globe.
You can not prove fantasy - the earth is not flat.
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2015, 10:08:47 AM »
You can not disprove reality- the earth is a globe.
You can not prove fantasy - the earth is not flat.

If only such statements had any place in discussion.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2015, 12:12:39 PM »
Define 'disprove'
A model can't be contradicted if you have an army willing to make an excuse at every flaw. The formula giverning gravity was disproven, but dark matter was supposed. The shape of the Sun disproved the RE model, until new excuses and forces were invoked. It's always possible to make an excuse.
In practise, a disproof is not done by showing a problem with a model A, it is done by showing that a model B which cannot be reconciled with A is much more likely to be true.

If the latter is what you're asking then yes, I can do that, but not in the space of one post. It would take outlining and analyzing a theory (from scratch), followed by comparing it. It's further complicated by how few people here are interested in expending any effort to learn FET.

How does the shape of the sun disprove the RE model?
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2015, 12:14:11 PM »
Define 'disprove'
A model can't be contradicted if you have an army willing to make an excuse at every flaw. The formula giverning gravity was disproven, but dark matter was supposed. The shape of the Sun disproved the RE model, until new excuses and forces were invoked. It's always possible to make an excuse.
In practise, a disproof is not done by showing a problem with a model A, it is done by showing that a model B which cannot be reconciled with A is much more likely to be true.

If the latter is what you're asking then yes, I can do that, but not in the space of one post. It would take outlining and analyzing a theory (from scratch), followed by comparing it. It's further complicated by how few people here are interested in expending any effort to learn FET.

How does the shape of the sun disprove the RE model?

It disproved the relative forces of gravity and the centrifugal force, which act on the Earth as well, and are crucial to the existence of a RE (meant literally, not figuratively).
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

chtwrone

  • 443
  • Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again
Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2015, 05:36:50 PM »
Define 'disprove'
A model can't be contradicted if you have an army willing to make an excuse at every flaw. The formula giverning gravity was disproven, but dark matter was supposed. The shape of the Sun disproved the RE model, until new excuses and forces were invoked. It's always possible to make an excuse.
In practise, a disproof is not done by showing a problem with a model A, it is done by showing that a model B which cannot be reconciled with A is much more likely to be true.

If the latter is what you're asking then yes, I can do that, but not in the space of one post. It would take outlining and analyzing a theory (from scratch), followed by comparing it. It's further complicated by how few people here are interested in expending any effort to learn FET.

How does the shape of the sun disprove the RE model?

It disproved the relative forces of gravity and the centrifugal force, which act on the Earth as well, and are crucial to the existence of a RE (meant literally, not figuratively).

So according to you, what is the shape of the sun?    And how does the sun's shape 'disprove the relative forces of gravity and the centrifugal force which act on the earth'?
Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #12 on: October 24, 2015, 02:24:48 AM »
So according to you, what is the shape of the sun?    And how does the sun's shape 'disprove the relative forces of gravity and the centrifugal force which act on the earth'?

It does not disprove the relative forces. I never said it did: there is an explanation, concocted from supposed magnetic forces and a whole host of inexplicable thoughts. The Sun is a large ball of gas with a set force of gravity, the Earth is analogous, and the Earth is said to bulge at the equator because of its spin: the same force should act on the Sun, and yet the Sun is far more round than it should be.
Under DET, the Sun is an approximate sphere of metal (formed due to pressure) surrounded by rock, and the metal orb is surrounded by this rock, on all except one side, forming the spotlight effect.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

chtwrone

  • 443
  • Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again
Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #13 on: October 24, 2015, 03:19:52 AM »
How can anyone 'disprove' anything?  We can only examine all of the evidence and come to a logical conclusion about the shape of the Earth.


Yep, here's some compelling evidence about the shape of the earth - therefore the 'logical conclusion' is that the shape of the earth is round.


Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #14 on: October 24, 2015, 07:38:58 AM »
Yep, here's some compelling evidence about the shape of the earth - therefore the 'logical conclusion' is that the shape of the earth is round.


Why do you post that image everywhere? FEers have a firm response to such photos. You can disagree with it all you want, but your image is useless for convincing anyone.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #15 on: October 24, 2015, 06:15:31 PM »
Yep, here's some compelling evidence about the shape of the earth - therefore the 'logical conclusion' is that the shape of the earth is round.


Why do you post that image everywhere? FEers have a firm response to such photos. You can disagree with it all you want, but your image is useless for convincing anyone.

Ah, the old ad populum fallacy "Others[nb]In this case, it's a really small group of "others", but still.[/nb] say this image is fake, therefore it must be fake."
 
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #16 on: October 24, 2015, 06:37:17 PM »
Define 'disprove'
A model can't be contradicted if you have an army willing to make an excuse at every flaw. The formula giverning gravity was disproven, but dark matter was supposed.

How do you know "the formula [governing] gravity was disproven"? Maybe there really is dark matter. There was an unknown eighth planet perturbing Uranus' orbit at the time of its discovery.

Quote
The shape of the Sun disproved the RE model, until new excuses and forces were invoked.

What is it about the shape of the Sun that "disproves" the (nearly) spherical shape of the Earth. I'm really interested in hearing this one!

Quote
It's always possible to make an excuse.

I defer to your expertise on this.

Quote
In practise, a disproof is not done by showing a problem with a model A, it is done by showing that a model B which cannot be reconciled with A is much more likely to be true.

That's not a "disproof" of A, it just makes B more appealing if B can be shown to be more likely to be true.

Quote
If the latter is what you're asking then yes, I can do that, but not in the space of one post. It would take outlining and analyzing a theory (from scratch), followed by comparing it.

Unless you can back up your claims, you're just talking. How about giving it a shot. What you just said sounds like excuses.

Quote
It's further complicated by how few people here are interested in expending any effort to learn FET.

Maybe the reason for that is that "FET" has so little chance of being correct that it's not worth much effort. Face it, FE is a model that simply doesn't work because it's the wrong model. "FE" is an interesting idea in contrarian thinking and putting your notions to the test; but it's easy to see that the widely-accepted spherical-earth model works better. If you can make a case otherwise, let's see it. This seems like the perfect thread for that. Here's your chance.

Unsubstantiated claims are easy to make. Let's see some substance instead of excuses. What are you waiting for?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #17 on: October 25, 2015, 03:06:06 AM »
Yep, here's some compelling evidence about the shape of the earth - therefore the 'logical conclusion' is that the shape of the earth is round.


Why do you post that image everywhere? FEers have a firm response to such photos. You can disagree with it all you want, but your image is useless for convincing anyone.

Ah, the old ad populum fallacy "Others[nb]In this case, it's a really small group of "others", but still.[/nb] say this image is fake, therefore it must be fake."

You do realize you actually need to address and refute a counterargument before you can use the corresponding argument, right?
Do you understand logic? At all? The fact that there is an existing, well-known response to those images means it is completely pointless to use those images as any kind of argument, because there is a counterargument. As I said, and as you ignored, you can disagree with that counterargument all you want, but you're not going to convince anyone with those images. YOU NEED TO ADDRESS THE COUNTERARGUMENT.

Your post isn't even a fallacy, it's just plain stupidity. Possibly a non sequitur.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #18 on: October 25, 2015, 03:15:31 AM »
How do you know "the formula [governing] gravity was disproven"? Maybe there really is dark matter. There was an unknown eighth planet perturbing Uranus' orbit at the time of its discovery.
Do you not understand anything? The predicted model was falsified. An excuse was made. The end.

Quote
What is it about the shape of the Sun that "disproves" the (nearly) spherical shape of the Earth. I'm really interested in hearing this one!
Consider reading the thread. Why is it REers always think their minds are so spectacular that they are the only person who could ever have thought to ask an obvious question?

Quote
Quote
In practise, a disproof is not done by showing a problem with a model A, it is done by showing that a model B which cannot be reconciled with A is much more likely to be true.
That's not a "disproof" of A, it just makes B more appealing if B can be shown to be more likely to be true.
And if B is held instead of A, as a result, that is functionally a disproof. If you're not happy with the terminology, fine: but it still shows how one model can replace another, which is the thrust of the OP.

Quote
Unless you can back up your claims, you're just talking. How about giving it a shot. What you just said sounds like excuses.
...
Maybe the reason for that is that "FET" has so little chance of being correct that it's not worth much effort. Face it, FE is a model that simply doesn't work because it's the wrong model. "FE" is an interesting idea in contrarian thinking and putting your notions to the test; but it's easy to see that the widely-accepted spherical-earth model works better. If you can make a case otherwise, let's see it. This seems like the perfect thread for that. Here's your chance.

Unsubstantiated claims are easy to make. Let's see some substance instead of excuses. What are you waiting for?
And you see the problem here perfectly.
I've tried it your way. It doesn't work. REers don't put the effort in to learn a model, they glance at one or two aspects relating to their questions, and either debate that, or debate something mentioned in those sections, without taking the time to read the rest of the model where their answer is stated clearly. You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn.

You see it clearly. You ignored my reasons, you ignored my explanations, you outright admitted REers don't put the effort in: and yet you expect me to do just what I said I wouldn't for those reasons.
An excuse may be justified. I'm not going to cross the road when cars are speeding along it: is that an excuse? yes. So what? It has plenty of substance to it. There is a reason.
The way to learn DET is pretty obvious. It just requires a REer to be willing to sit down and dedicate a little time or effort to understanding the model. That's how science works. I'm not going to waste time posting pages and pages in a random thread, because what would you do if you saw a wall of text posted? At best you'd skim it: at worst you'd just ignore it. What you're asking for is a very obvious waste of time, and that's all there is to it.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #19 on: October 25, 2015, 04:41:18 AM »
Yep, here's some compelling evidence about the shape of the earth - therefore the 'logical conclusion' is that the shape of the earth is round.


Why do you post that image everywhere? FEers have a firm response to such photos. You can disagree with it all you want, but your image is useless for convincing anyone.

Ah, the old ad populum fallacy "Others[nb]In this case, it's a really small group of "others", but still.[/nb] say this image is fake, therefore it must be fake."
Well its not fake , it is a photo. Manipulated ?defently, its a photo of a southern hemis  day time moon. Inverted & with the back ground blacked out . What is wrong with you people!!!!That you have to continually lie deceive & inflict continual malignancy of  servitude. Do you not feel the slightest bit of shame in what your doing ?
Birdy - People Help The People [Official Music Vi…: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
« Last Edit: October 25, 2015, 04:56:23 AM by charles bloomington »
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:

Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #20 on: October 25, 2015, 09:11:54 AM »
How do you know "the formula [governing] gravity was disproven"? Maybe there really is dark matter. There was an unknown eighth planet perturbing Uranus' orbit at the time of its discovery.
Do you not understand anything?

Yes. I understand that the orbit of Uranus was perturbed by a then-unknown large planet. Some predictions of its position were made, and it was found close to some of those.

Quote
The predicted model was falsified. An excuse was made. The end.

Um, no. That's not an "excuse", A large unaccounted-for mass was postulated as a plausible reason for the observed perturbations, and turned out to be correct. An "excuse" would be something like "the laws of Kepler must not apply here, but they do everywhere else."

Which model was flasified? Newton and Kepler's? No, this was validated, not falsified; these are opposites. Remember that the new planet (it's Neptune, in case you didn't know that) was close to the location predicted using that model.

That's one of the hallmarks of a reasonably accurate model - the ability to make accurate predictions. The end.

Quote
Quote
What is it about the shape of the Sun that "disproves" the (nearly) spherical shape of the Earth. I'm really interested in hearing this one!
Consider reading the thread. Why is it REers always think their minds are so spectacular that they are the only person who could ever have thought to ask an obvious question?

I have read it. I just don't recall seeing any such "proof". Maybe I missed it, though; since you say it's there, you know what it is you're looking for, and could provide a link to it.

I'll bet you reply with some excuse for not providing such a link or just ignore the request. The reason you won't provide said link is that you can't, because it doesn't exist.

Quote
Quote
Quote
In practise, a disproof is not done by showing a problem with a model A, it is done by showing that a model B which cannot be reconciled with A is much more likely to be true.
That's not a "disproof" of A, it just makes B more appealing if B can be shown to be more likely to be true.
And if B is held instead of A, as a result, that is functionally a disproof. If you're not happy with the terminology, fine: but it still shows how one model can replace another, which is the thrust of the OP.

Quote
Unless you can back up your claims, you're just talking. How about giving it a shot. What you just said sounds like excuses.
...
Maybe the reason for that is that "FET" has so little chance of being correct that it's not worth much effort. Face it, FE is a model that simply doesn't work because it's the wrong model. "FE" is an interesting idea in contrarian thinking and putting your notions to the test; but it's easy to see that the widely-accepted spherical-earth model works better. If you can make a case otherwise, let's see it. This seems like the perfect thread for that. Here's your chance.

Unsubstantiated claims are easy to make. Let's see some substance instead of excuses. What are you waiting for?
And you see the problem here perfectly.
I've tried it your way. It doesn't work. REers don't put the effort in to learn a model, they glance at one or two aspects relating to their questions, and either debate that, or debate something mentioned in those sections

Once they reach the points where the basic tenets of the model obviously disagree with observation, there's little reason to proceed.

Quote
without taking the time to read the rest of the model where their answer is stated clearly.

Why not put the part with the clear answers first and save the wrong stuff until later?

Quote
You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn.

Boy, howdy, is that ever true! Discussing reality with you is a prime example of that!

Quote
You see it clearly. You ignored my reasons, you ignored my explanations, you outright admitted REers don't put the effort in: and yet you expect me to do just what I said I wouldn't for those reasons.

Your problem is that you think your explanations make sense. They don't.

Quote
An excuse may be justified. I'm not going to cross the road when cars are speeding along it: is that an excuse? yes. So what? It has plenty of substance to it. There is a reason.

That's an example of a "reason", or, if you insist, a "good excuse" for not crossing the road. That's different from what you do to avoid answering questions. What do you think will happen? You'll get flattened by a Greyhound Scenicruiser[nb]For readers who may be unfamiliar with them, a Greyhound Scenicruiser is a large cross-country bus.[/nb] if you answer direct questions on this website?

Quote
The way to learn DET is pretty obvious. It just requires a REer to be willing to sit down and dedicate a little time or effort to understanding the model.

If there's a comprehensive and at least semi-coherent description of the current model, will you provide a link to it?

It was changing pretty rapidly for a while and bits and it showed up in various states in several places.

Quote
That's how science works.

Actually, no. Science works by not only creating models, but also testing them and using them to make predictions. If a model better explains observations than other models, it will become accepted. As I recall, the equator of your DE model required much more complexity than the Spherical-Earth model to explain routine observations. Has that changed?

Quote
I'm not going to waste time posting pages and pages in a random thread, because what would you do if you saw a wall of text posted? At best you'd skim it: at worst you'd just ignore it. What you're asking for is a very obvious waste of time, and that's all there is to it.

Not that's an excuse[nb]And not the good kind.[/nb].

If you're not going to describe your model, then how can it be tested? If there's already a clear and comprehensive description of the current iteration, link, please. Or, if you prefer, just make another excuse for not doing so.
 
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #21 on: October 25, 2015, 09:24:55 AM »
Yes. I understand that the orbit of Uranus was perturbed by a then-unknown large planet. Some predictions of its position were made, and it was found close to some of those.
...
Um, no. That's not an "excuse", A large unaccounted-for mass was postulated as a plausible reason for the observed perturbations, and turned out to be correct. An "excuse" would be something like "the laws of Kepler must not apply here, but they do everywhere else."

Which model was flasified? Newton and Kepler's? No, this was validated, not falsified; these are opposites. Remember that the new planet (it's Neptune, in case you didn't know that) was close to the location predicted using that model.

That's one of the hallmarks of a reasonably accurate model - the ability to make accurate predictions. The end.
...
I have read it. I just don't recall seeing any such "proof". Maybe I missed it, though; since you say it's there, you know what it is you're looking for, and could provide a link to it.

I'll bet you reply with some excuse for not providing such a link or just ignore the request. The reason you won't provide said link is that you can't, because it doesn't exist.
Actually I'm just going to leave that statement as it stands, because someone else asked the exact same question, and as everything you've said has already been responded to, i see no reason to waste time on someone who has demonstrated an inability and unwillingness to read.


Quote
Unless you can back up your claims, you're just talking. How about giving it a shot. What you just said sounds like excuses.
...
Maybe the reason for that is that "FET" has so little chance of being correct that it's not worth much effort. Face it, FE is a model that simply doesn't work because it's the wrong model. "FE" is an interesting idea in contrarian thinking and putting your notions to the test; but it's easy to see that the widely-accepted spherical-earth model works better. If you can make a case otherwise, let's see it. This seems like the perfect thread for that. Here's your chance.

Unsubstantiated claims are easy to make. Let's see some substance instead of excuses. What are you waiting for?
You've had it. You've just decided that what i say must lack substance because you personally don't want to put any effort into thinking about it. I've directly responded to what you said, but hey, thinking would be too much work apparently.


Quote
Why not put the part with the clear answers first and save the wrong stuff until later?
Are you aware of how anything is taught? Everything builds on knowledge of past areas. You need to understand the basics to develop. People who skim or misunderstand are left drowning as soon as we get to any serious applications. This is very basic, and again, something you should know if you were willing to think about FET. But you're not here to do that, are you?

Quote
Your problem is that you think your explanations make sense. They don't.
Justify your claims.

Quote
That's an example of a "reason", or, if you insist, a "good excuse" for not crossing the road. That's different from what you do to avoid answering questions. What do you think will happen? You'll get flattened by a Greyhound Scenicruiser if you answer direct questions on this website?
Yet another question that has been answered.

Quote
If there's a comprehensive and at least semi-coherent description of the current model, will you provide a link to it?

It was changing pretty rapidly for a while and bits and it showed up in various states in several places.
Read. Seriously, this is getting tedious.

Quote
Actually, no. Science works by not only creating models, but also testing them and using them to make predictions. If a model better explains observations than other models, it will become accepted. As I recall, the equator of your DE model required much more complexity than the Spherical-Earth model to explain routine observations. Has that changed?
And that was never true, but of course you didn't take the time to actually read and take in the model, you skimmed it or just listened to the bastardizations of REers and trolls who did the exact same. You don't even try.

Quote
Not that's an excuse[nb]And not the good kind.[/nb].

If you're not going to describe your model, then how can it be tested? If there's already a clear and comprehensive description of the current iteration, link, please. Or, if you prefer, just make another excuse for not doing so.
Or you could read.

You just provide more and more and more evidence for what I say. Everything you say has had an answer already given. You don't even try to respond to tehse answers, you just ignore them or claim they're magically not good enough without saying why. It is impossible to teach someone who thinks that's any way to do a discussion.
Here's predicting you're going to claim victory because I wouldn't play your little time-wasting game. Anyone who took the time to actually read this thread will see how you're just repeating things and claiming you're not. Anyone who doesn't read this thread, well, there's no point in talking with them: and that's why I'm not wasting my time with you. If you don't read what's in front of you, why should I give you any more?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #22 on: October 25, 2015, 10:30:26 PM »
Do you realize that in your entire post, there wasn't even a single straight answer to anything, just excuses for not answering (basically "I can't be bothered"), unfounded claims that you already had answered (a simple link to the alleged answer would be far more convincing), and direction to "read", with no indication of what to read. You write a prodigious amount of "stuff", most of which has little or no meaning. If you're trying to sell something, make it easy for the reader to get to.

Yes. I understand that the orbit of Uranus was perturbed by a then-unknown large planet. Some predictions of its position were made, and it was found close to some of those.
...
Um, no. That's not an "excuse", A large unaccounted-for mass was postulated as a plausible reason for the observed perturbations, and turned out to be correct. An "excuse" would be something like "the laws of Kepler must not apply here, but they do everywhere else."

Which model was flasified? Newton and Kepler's? No, this was validated, not falsified; these are opposites. Remember that the new planet (it's Neptune, in case you didn't know that) was close to the location predicted using that model.

That's one of the hallmarks of a reasonably accurate model - the ability to make accurate predictions. The end.
...
I have read it. I just don't recall seeing any such "proof". Maybe I missed it, though; since you say it's there, you know what it is you're looking for, and could provide a link to it.

I'll bet you reply with some excuse for not providing such a link or just ignore the request. The reason you won't provide said link is that you can't, because it doesn't exist.
Actually I'm just going to leave that statement as it stands, because someone else asked the exact same question, and as everything you've said has already been responded to

Fine. Where? I'll believe you if you'll actually provide some substance instead of just claiming "already answered".

As predicted. No answer. Excuse.

Quote
i see no reason to waste time on someone who has demonstrated an inability and unwillingness to read.

Another excuse for not answering.

Quote
Quote
Unless you can back up your claims, you're just talking. How about giving it a shot. What you just said sounds like excuses.
...
Maybe the reason for that is that "FET" has so little chance of being correct that it's not worth much effort. Face it, FE is a model that simply doesn't work because it's the wrong model. "FE" is an interesting idea in contrarian thinking and putting your notions to the test; but it's easy to see that the widely-accepted spherical-earth model works better. If you can make a case otherwise, let's see it. This seems like the perfect thread for that. Here's your chance.

Unsubstantiated claims are easy to make. Let's see some substance instead of excuses. What are you waiting for?
You've had it. You've just decided that what i say must lack substance because you personally don't want to put any effort into thinking about it. I've directly responded to what you said, but hey, thinking would be too much work apparently.


Quote
Why not put the part with the clear answers first and save the wrong stuff until later?
Are you aware of how anything is taught?

Yes.

Quote
Everything builds on knowledge of past areas. You need to understand the basics to develop. People who skim or misunderstand are left drowning as soon as we get to any serious applications.

If the basics are wrong, then anything developed from them are invalid. It really is that simple.

Quote
This is very basic, and again, something you should know if you were willing to think about FET. But you're not here to do that, are you?

Yes, I am here to think about FE ideas. The problem is that everything in support of FE so far has been clearly and unequivocally wrong, and it's been simple to show where it's wrong. If you've got something I missed or something new, please present it, or refer to where it's described.

Quote
Quote
Your problem is that you think your explanations make sense. They don't.
Justify your claims.

Why would the motion of stars around each pole in the DE model appear to be a circle when viewed from near the rim?

Quote
Quote
That's an example of a "reason", or, if you insist, a "good excuse" for not crossing the road. That's different from what you do to avoid answering questions. What do you think will happen? You'll get flattened by a Greyhound Scenicruiser if you answer direct questions on this website?
Yet another question that has been answered.

Where?

Quote
Quote
If there's a comprehensive and at least semi-coherent description of the current model, will you provide a link to it?

It was changing pretty rapidly for a while and bits and it showed up in various states in several places.
Read. Seriously, this is getting tedious.

Read what? Specifically.

Quote
Quote
Actually, no. Science works by not only creating models, but also testing them and using them to make predictions. If a model better explains observations than other models, it will become accepted. As I recall, the equator of your DE model required much more complexity than the Spherical-Earth model to explain routine observations. Has that changed?
And that was never true, but of course you didn't take the time to actually read and take in the model, you skimmed it or just listened to the bastardizations of REers and trolls who did the exact same.

I read it until the point where it ceased making any sense whatsoever. That didn't take very long. Skimmed it afterward to see if there was anything to salvage it. Nothing emerged, just more balderdash. If I missed some cogent point, please show me.

Quote
You don't even try.

Another unsubstantiated assertion.

Quote
Quote
Not that's an excuse[nb]And not the good kind.[/nb].

If you're not going to describe your model, then how can it be tested? If there's already a clear and comprehensive description of the current iteration, link, please. Or, if you prefer, just make another excuse for not doing so.
Or you could read.

Read what? Specifically.

Quote
You just provide more and more and more evidence for what I say.

Have you actually said anything? All I see are excuses for not backing up your assertions. You could easily change that (but only if your assertions had any merit).

Quote
Everything you say has had an answer already given.

Example, please. Surely this would be easy if there was one.

Quote
You don't even try to respond to tehse answers, you just ignore them or claim they're magically not good enough without saying why. It is impossible to teach someone who thinks that's any way to do a discussion.

Pot... kettle.

Quote
Here's predicting you're going to claim victory because I wouldn't play your little time-wasting game. Anyone who took the time to actually read this thread will see how you're just repeating things and claiming you're not.

If you think this, then obviously you're not reading what I write.

Quote
Anyone who doesn't read this thread, well, there's no point in talking with them: and that's why I'm not wasting my time with you. If you don't read what's in front of you, why should I give you any more?

More? You haven't given anything except unfounded assertions and excuses - feel free to not bother with more of those if you please. More substance, less opinion would be good.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #23 on: October 26, 2015, 12:38:30 AM »
If the basics are wrong, then anything developed from them are invalid. It really is that simple.
Irrelevant.

Quote
Yes, I am here to think about FE ideas. The problem is that everything in support of FE so far has been clearly and unequivocally wrong, and it's been simple to show where it's wrong. If you've got something I missed or something new, please present it, or refer to where it's described.
Answered.

Quote
Why would the motion of stars around each pole in the DE model appear to be a circle when viewed from near the rim?
You'd need to justify why you think they wouldn't.

Quote
I read it until the point where it ceased making any sense whatsoever. That didn't take very long. Skimmed it afterward to see if there was anything to salvage it. Nothing emerged, just more balderdash. If I missed some cogent point, please show me.
Point made. You misunderstood an early part, and do don't understand any of the model as a result. It's that simple. If you would read my posts, you'd see that there's been an answer in eveyr single one. But you do not read, so what is the point?

Quote
Have you actually said anything? All I see are excuses for not backing up your assertions. You could easily change that (but only if your assertions had any merit).
Nope, all you see is me being tired of your refusal to read the thread. It's quite spectacular in fact. What is your objection to actually putting the effort in and read?

Quote
Example, please. Surely this would be easy if there was one.
Not playing your game. Not wasting time. Just want to make it clear for everyone how dishonest you are.

So, yep, reading would be good. Please note that you've never once done what I asked. Even a moron could see, for example, the answer to your DE question. That's just an objective fact at this stage.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #24 on: October 27, 2015, 07:34:18 AM »
Forgive me if you've actually already answered my question but at the moment I have no idea what anyone is saying.
Let me be more clear as to my original question:
A single piece of evidence suggesting the earth is flat.
This evidence has to be easily observable so anyone can verify it.
It can't be based on any third-party evidence as the conspiracy everyone keeps talking about could have affected it to some degree.
You must explain how you know this information.
Notice the word "suggest". I'm giving some leeway on the evidence now to make things a bit easier to understand for me.
Please don't start arguing again though  ;D
Part of the conspiracy. Illuminati, Lizard men or just plain crazy. Take your pick, all three are on this forum.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #25 on: October 27, 2015, 09:19:46 AM »
Define 'disprove'
A model can't be contradicted if you have an army willing to make an excuse at every flaw. The formula giverning gravity was disproven, but dark matter was supposed. The shape of the Sun disproved the RE model, until new excuses and forces were invoked. It's always possible to make an excuse.
In practise, a disproof is not done by showing a problem with a model A, it is done by showing that a model B which cannot be reconciled with A is much more likely to be true.

If the latter is what you're asking then yes, I can do that, but not in the space of one post. It would take outlining and analyzing a theory (from scratch), followed by comparing it. It's further complicated by how few people here are interested in expending any effort to learn FET.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #26 on: October 28, 2015, 07:12:32 AM »
Can't you just copy and paste an explanation?
Or at least state a proof/explanation so i can go away and research it?
Part of the conspiracy. Illuminati, Lizard men or just plain crazy. Take your pick, all three are on this forum.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #27 on: October 28, 2015, 09:16:52 AM »
Can't you just copy and paste an explanation?
Or at least state a proof/explanation so i can go away and research it?

I've tried it that way: it doesn't work. Science is never taught with textbook alone: there needs to be interaction and an explanation.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #28 on: October 28, 2015, 12:07:52 PM »
Well I give up.
The Earth is round. So much for my open minded approach.
Part of the conspiracy. Illuminati, Lizard men or just plain crazy. Take your pick, all three are on this forum.

Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« Reply #29 on: November 01, 2015, 06:17:49 AM »
Forgive me if you've actually already answered my question but at the moment I have no idea what anyone is saying.
Let me be more clear as to my original question:
A single piece of evidence suggesting the earth is flat.
This evidence has to be easily observable so anyone can verify it.
It can't be based on any third-party evidence as the conspiracy everyone keeps talking about could have affected it to some degree.
You must explain how you know this information.
Notice the word "suggest". I'm giving some leeway on the evidence now to make things a bit easier to understand for me.
Please don't start arguing again though  ;D

Hey Cake Tastes Nice, don't know if you're still hanging around, but the best evidence for a flat Earth seems to be, 'Looks flat to me!'

No, really, go to a lake-ocean shore, or any place with an unobstructed view of the horizon, and 'Open your eyes.' You will see it's flat. There you have it.
I'm no rocket scientist, but at least I know the Earth is round, Man went to the Moon, and air exists.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Carl Sagan