Geocentric? more like Egocentric!

  • 65 Replies
  • 4444 Views
*

sircool

  • 426
  • flat, round, whatever throats your goat
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #30 on: December 02, 2015, 09:21:51 AM »
You people should really learn the definitions of the words you use.  Such as 'refute' and 'disprove'.  I don't think they mean what you think they mean, or you are deliberately using the words in the wrong context.  Do you think it makes you seem smarter when you use words incorrectly?

Stating this centantly makes you seem smart, haha.
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #31 on: December 02, 2015, 09:23:50 AM »
You people should really learn the definitions of the words you use.  Such as 'refute' and 'disprove'.  I don't think they mean what you think they mean, or you are deliberately using the words in the wrong context.  Do you think it makes you seem smarter when you use words incorrectly?
Refute - prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
Disprove - prove that (something) is false.

I have refuted and disproved the Sun being 3000 mi / 4800 km. I meant what I said.

Regardless, as I pointed out, FEers can't provide a distance for Neptune because they don't know Neptune exists.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

sircool

  • 426
  • flat, round, whatever throats your goat
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #32 on: December 02, 2015, 09:26:59 AM »
You people should really learn the definitions of the words you use.  Such as 'refute' and 'disprove'.  I don't think they mean what you think they mean, or you are deliberately using the words in the wrong context.  Do you think it makes you seem smarter when you use words incorrectly?
Refute - prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
Disprove - prove that (something) is false.

I have refuted and disproved the Sun being 3000 mi / 4800 km. I meant what I said.

Regardless, as I pointed out, FEers can't provide a distance for Neptune because they don't know Neptune exists.

Then I have a request for all flat earth believers: Contact local observatory, if their telescope is powerful enough, you'll see it. Astronomers are very often nice people too, they will definetly let you take a look. You'll probably struggle getting them to shut up about it ;D
« Last Edit: December 02, 2015, 09:30:32 AM by sircool »
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #33 on: December 02, 2015, 09:57:38 AM »
Quote
Stop derailing the thread you fuckwit.
Something you notably did not say to Jadyyn when he did, as he usually does, and spammed an argument irrelevant to the thread that he's incapable of defending when pressed. Hypocrite much?

Quote
At ~0.5°, the height is 54 mi up. This does not support a FE model
Assuming a simplification probably based on presupposing the RE model, as per usual.

Quote
I have personally measured Neptune to be approximately 4.7 billion km away from earth, I work as an astronomer, you see.
On-topic, this seems like the key to the OP, why was no elaboration forthcoming? If parallax was not used, as you said, by what means did you determine this figure vital to your calculations?

As for the REers whining about FEers in this thread, did you read the OP? It isn't relevant to FET: it's based on the RE geocentric notion.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

sircool

  • 426
  • flat, round, whatever throats your goat
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #34 on: December 02, 2015, 10:06:11 AM »
No assumptions, simple geometry based on ancient greek logic :)
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #35 on: December 02, 2015, 12:28:33 PM »
So, ronxyz's
Quote
stellar parallax, Your math is erroneously based on your assumption of the distance of the sun from the Earth, as that distance is the base 93,000,000 miles. Re-do the same thing using the sun distance of 3000 miles and post your results. Thanks
Was on topic? Why didn't you tell him he was derailing?

Then sircool's:
Quote
Ronxyz why 3000miles? What is the geometry behind your statement?  Also no stellar parallaxes were needed in this analysis.
Was still on topic.

Then my explanation of it:
Quote
I believe the current 3000 mi argument comes from here
Reply #37 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64777.20#.Vl8LinarSUk)

that I refuted in
Reply #72 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64777.60#.Vl8MAHarSUl)

and:
Quote
Actually it does. As I stated, the 3000 mi height is cherry-picked from the 45° angle. At ~0.5°, the height is 54 mi up. This does not support a FE model. Just these 2 locations disprove FE. My point was, with more locations on Earth, we could determine the shape of the Earth then determine the height of the Sun. Sorry you did not understand that.

The OP assumes "Neptune to be approximately 4.7 billion km away from earth". Regardless of what you have PERSONALLY done (I have PERSONALLY aligned telescopes), FEers assume the sky is like 4800 km away (based on the sun), therefore Neptune is just beyond that.

Actually, I do not believe FEers CAN answer your question. (1) Neptune was discovered by gravitational deviations in Uranus' orbit. (2) Since "gravity" does not exist in the FE world, I don't know how Universal Acceleration, Denpressure, whatever, can find Neptune. The FE people do not even believe Neptune and Pluto exist! Why would they rely on RET for proof of its existence. Let them find it in the sky themselves using what they believe.
Somehow was derailing? My disproof of the 4800 km distance is irrelevant? Why was ronxyz's argument relevant? not derailing? Hypocrite much?

Spamming, as you call it, a proof is exactly what I will continue to do until someone disproves it. You keep spamming DEF BS all over the place with no evidence. Mine at least is based on observation and actual measurements. You should try it some time.

When faced with real numbers, this is the type of argument that is presented. There is a WHOLE THREAD on trying to get FEers to provide PROOF of the 4800 km distance - (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64777.0#.Vl9SX3arSUk). So where is the proof that we should use 4800 km instead of 4.7 billion km?

As I said before, none of this actually matters, because FEers, like you, do not believe in Neptune or Pluto. Using UA, denpressure, Aether, whatever, find them. Why should sircool have to elaborate on something FEers don't even believe to exist?
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #36 on: December 02, 2015, 12:34:44 PM »
Neptune exists, and is explained by DET. You ignore the evidence for the model, you lie about it over and over, and ramble stupidly about a point not addressed at you, and ignore the one thing that was actually addressed at you.
Tedious as ever.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #37 on: December 02, 2015, 12:55:16 PM »
Neptune exists, and is explained by DET. You ignore the evidence for the model, you lie about it over and over, and ramble stupidly about a point not addressed at you, and ignore the one thing that was actually addressed at you.
Tedious as ever.
Prove Neptune exists (not using RET and gravity of course)... Specifically (oooo, scary word), where in the sky is it (or under the Earth)? Does Nibiru exist too? What is the difference between them in DEF?

You know JRowe, I get it... As you have said before, the evidence for DEF is "everything we observe". REAL scientists are really stupid fools then. Why do they bother with experiments, measurements and writing papers when, like you, all they need to say is "everything we observe" is evidence for their hypotheses and theories. It is proof of gravity. It is proof of satellites. It is proof of just about every thing out there.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

sircool

  • 426
  • flat, round, whatever throats your goat
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #38 on: December 02, 2015, 01:02:08 PM »
It seems like you guys are too hung up in theoretical things. just open your eyes and look up, its amazing what you will be able to see.
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #39 on: December 02, 2015, 01:08:05 PM »
Jroa you are like cancer. Whenever there is a interesting thread, that challenges the fundations on which this fora is built on, you're there to talk down on people. Every good thing in this world gets dragged down by ignorance. Just like a working cell gets eaten by a cancerous cell. I'm glad our friend and astronomer just doesen't care about your trolling.^^ every time I'm in here It gets so clear to my why america is just an island, you guys believe in mormons, creationists, flat earth, pseudoscience, and pretty much every other fairytale there is, some fucktard of you believe it's true. You don't believe in space travel, global warming, vaccination, but still think  are a superpower? Not for long, Haha russia laughs at you faggots. Europe too because you who once where so great, are now just some phatass racists religious Conspiracy believeing scum. Thank you.

In my experience, those who claim other people need a boy/girlfriend are those in need of one. I'll just leave as it is, or it would further jroa's derailment.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #40 on: December 02, 2015, 01:14:22 PM »
Quote
Prove Neptune exists (not using RET and gravity of course)... Specifically (oooo, scary word), where in the sky is it (or under the Earth)? Does Nibiru exist too? What is the difference between them in DEF?
Look up at the sky, use a telescope, there you go: easily observed. The location of the planets is described in the DE model. if all you're going to do is propose pathetic conspiracy theories and whinge about the fact I don't have the same resources as your multi billion dollar preachers, you're wasting time as per usual.

Quote
You know JRowe, I get it... As you have said before, the evidence for DEF is "everything we observe". REAL scientists are really stupid fools then. Why do they bother with experiments, measurements and writing papers when, like you, all they need to say is "everything we observe" is evidence for their hypotheses and theories. It is proof of gravity. It is proof of satellites. It is proof of just about every thing out there.
What are you on about now? Are you really going to claim we don't observe experiments? Yet more evidence you haven't even tried to learn the DE model... How about you try to learn about the model, and even read the handily titled section on evidence, rather than whine pointlessly.

Tell you what, how about you stop bullshitting, and stop whinging like a toddler who knows they're wrong but won't admit it. If my standard of evidence isn't good enough, how about you say what's actually wrong with it rather than outright lie about it, and rambling about utter bullshit. You know where you can find it.
Or is mounting an actually intelligent argument too hard for you?

Quote
It seems like you guys are too hung up in theoretical things. just open your eyes and look up, its amazing what you will be able to see.
And how can we know anything about our observations if we have no theory about them?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

sircool

  • 426
  • flat, round, whatever throats your goat
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #41 on: December 02, 2015, 01:55:50 PM »
"And how can we know anything about our observations if we have no theory about them?"

We do, we just have to let scientists develop the theories, so that we can use them to understand the world a bit more, thats all there is to it, if a better theory is proposed, we reject the old!
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #42 on: December 02, 2015, 03:04:05 PM »
Quote
Prove Neptune exists (not using RET and gravity of course)... Specifically (oooo, scary word), where in the sky is it (or under the Earth)? Does Nibiru exist too? What is the difference between them in DEF?
Look up at the sky, use a telescope, there you go: easily observed. The location of the planets is described in the DE model. if all you're going to do is propose pathetic conspiracy theories and whinge about the fact I don't have the same resources as your multi billion dollar preachers, you're wasting time as per usual.

Quote
You know JRowe, I get it... As you have said before, the evidence for DEF is "everything we observe". REAL scientists are really stupid fools then. Why do they bother with experiments, measurements and writing papers when, like you, all they need to say is "everything we observe" is evidence for their hypotheses and theories. It is proof of gravity. It is proof of satellites. It is proof of just about every thing out there.
What are you on about now? Are you really going to claim we don't observe experiments? Yet more evidence you haven't even tried to learn the DE model... How about you try to learn about the model, and even read the handily titled section on evidence, rather than whine pointlessly.

Tell you what, how about you stop bullshitting, and stop whinging like a toddler who knows they're wrong but won't admit it. If my standard of evidence isn't good enough, how about you say what's actually wrong with it rather than outright lie about it, and rambling about utter bullshit. You know where you can find it.
Or is mounting an actually intelligent argument too hard for you?

Quote
It seems like you guys are too hung up in theoretical things. just open your eyes and look up, its amazing what you will be able to see.
And how can we know anything about our observations if we have no theory about them?
Your lack of understanding astronomy is staggering. You don't know where it is in DEF other than like everything else, it is in the Earth somewhere near the Sun.

Um.. so, THE first MAJOR STEP - how do you even know it even exists? Are you just taking the word of REers/heliocentrists?

You don't just point a telescope at the sky - it is NOT easily observed (professional astronomers had to calculate its position using mathematical, gravitational and orbital formulas to find it). You even need a big enough telescope to see more than just a point of light or it just looks like another star. You need to know where to point it and when (the sky is moving 15°/hr). As it is moving relative to the stationary stars each night, you can't just point a telescope and find it like finding a fixed star. RET and gravity tell us where and when (declination and ascension) - it is NOT trivial. Magazines get their information by someone calculating where it is/will be based on orbital and gravitational elements. Even IF you could align a telescope so it tracks the sky, where do I point the telescope to see Neptune per DEF? No fair cheating and looking it up in a RET/heliocentric documents.

Here are pictures with a 350mm telescope (this 14" telescope tends to be larger than average - most 4" - 8"). Now-a-days, with CCD cameras, you can use software to layer/sandwich multiple exposures. (http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/2013/neptune-the-new-amateur-boundary.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/) - LRGB (Luminescence - brightness, filters - Red, Green, Blue).
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #43 on: December 03, 2015, 01:55:12 AM »
Let me also mention, Pluto is 100x harder to find than even Neptune. It took gravitational and orbital discrepancies in Uranus and Neptune's orbit to spot it.

"Pluto's visual apparent magnitude averages 15.1, brightening to 13.65 at perihelion. To see it, a telescope is required; around 30 cm (12 in) aperture being desirable. It looks star-like and without a visible disk even in large telescopes, because its angular diameter is only 0.11". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#Mass_and_size)

It is even dimmer than stars on star charts. The best printed star atlases go down to 11th magnitude, which is not faint enough. It moves - but much slower than Neptune, so can easily be dismissed as a faint star. Even in huge telescopes, it is barely a disk. This is with a 30" telescope - not your standard fair (http://www.azastronomy.com/solar-system/pluto.html) or thru a 12" (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/pluto-occultation-a-first-report/)

An amateur astronomer MIGHT randomly come across Neptune with a telescope now-a-days with CCD cameras but Pluto, no way. There are asteroids brighter. You actually need a PHOTOGRAPH of the sky to actually find Pluto (or software on your computer with its orbital elements - ellipse - to find it). Angular diameter 0.11" of arc, it is like trying to spot a 4" Pepsi can on the Pacific Ocean from 100 mi up - assuming you know where on the ocean to even look. Good luck.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #44 on: December 03, 2015, 01:34:53 PM »
Quote
We do, we just have to let scientists develop the theories, so that we can use them to understand the world a bit more, thats all there is to it, if a better theory is proposed, we reject the old!
Pay attention to context. That's exactly what I'm saying. Try not to make a straw man, REer fallacies are just tedious.

Quote
Um.. so, THE first MAJOR STEP - how do you even know it even exists? Are you just taking the word of REers/heliocentrists?
You're the paranoid moron here, I'm happy to trust when I see no reason to distrust.

Quote
Even IF you could align a telescope so it tracks the sky,
Still whining about that huh? Still waiting for your answer to my questions, any time. Until you can do that your argument stands refuted and no amount of your arrogant posturing will change that.

Quote
You don't know where it is in DEF other than like everything else,
Well, beyond knowing where it is, but sure... More lies, is it really that much fo a struggle for you to learn the model? I mean, sure, you've whinged about how you're refusing to learn it because there's 'no evidence,' despite the fact you've consistently ignored the evidence I propose, but if you're going to try to ramble about the theory, maybe you should learn it?
Nope, too concerned with your typical lies. This is just pathetic.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

TheEarthIsntFlat

  • 51
  • The Earth is round...
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #45 on: December 03, 2015, 06:47:43 PM »
I am not sure how you looking through your little telescope proves or disproves the shape of what your are standing on.  Perhaps you should reduce the amount of time you spend looking through scopes and you might get a girlfriend for a change?  Just a suggestion.
Yeah, I definitely think you should be concentrating on getting and keeping a girlfriend.  Quit playing D&D too.  I bet you are a larper as well.  Get your priorities straight.
You seem a little touchy about the girlfriend subject.
Personally, I feel that you are simply a shitty poster.  That is just my opinion, though.
So is this how Flat Earthers debate?
« Last Edit: December 03, 2015, 06:50:15 PM by TheEarthIsntFlat »
We're not called "Round Earthers", we're called "the other 99.999% of people on this earth that use their brain."

Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #46 on: December 03, 2015, 11:36:01 PM »
Yes
Earth is flat, but Jupiter is the flattest planet in our solar system.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #47 on: December 04, 2015, 05:51:21 AM »
Quote
Quote
Even IF you could align a telescope so it tracks the sky,
Still whining about that huh? Still waiting for your answer to my questions, any time. Until you can do that your argument stands refuted and no amount of your arrogant posturing will change that.
Stop pretending you can align telescopes.
  • You don't know where an observer is on your DEF BS
  • You don't know the height of Polaris/Sigma Octonis on your DEF BS
  • You therefore don't know how to align ANY telescope on your DEF BS
  • All you managed to whine about is "I don't have the time or resources to get that information" - that is your REBUTTAL not REFUTATION.
Furthermore:
  • A telescope on the equator at sea-level (must be horizontal - we DO know were the equator is on your BS model), if 4 feet above ground, means Polaris/NCP and Sigma Octanis/SCP are 4 feet above the N.Pole and S.Pole. Altitude DOES matter in DEF, with telescope alignment it does not - another disproof.
  • Assuming Denver (latitude 40° N) is somewhere between the equator (edge) and the N.Pole (center) AND 1 mi above sea-level ("mile high" city), with all your BS explanations, you still have not answered how telescopes point UP at a 40° angle to see Polaris that is 4 feet above sea-level.
Also:
  • Since telescopes, by definition, are aligned based on the LATITUDE of the observer EVERYWHERE on Earth. This PROVES the Earth is spherical as latitudes are properties of spheres.
  • Is a sphere and a flat disk the same? Do they have the same properties? They better be if you are to align telescopes based on latitude using ANY FE model.
Your DEF BS has been falsified, disproved, debunked, refuted decisively.

Your argument that the "altitude of the stars" somehow allows you to align telescopes fails - YOU can't even tell me how high Polaris is. Poor you, you don't have the time/resources to measure it. But you authoritatively state that this answers my questions - total 100% BS.

Your argument that OTHER models can align telescopes so MAYBE FE can (i.e. it MIGHT be possible) is the ONLY argument you have. But YOU have no proof FE CAN actually do it. As listed above, I have shown it CAN'T.

Stop spamming your DEF BS into threads. And YES, I will copy this into other threads whenever you spam your DEF BS.

*I* was willing to drop the subject - that you didn't have the time/resources to prove your DEF BS. Being nice, I gave in to your pathetic whining. THAT does not constitute a WIN/PROOF of DEF. Provide your REAL MEASURABLE TESTABLE evidence, as EVERYONE requests, of your DEF BS. Put up or shut up. Stop whining you can't, then stating your model works somehow and spamming it in threads. Read my sig.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #48 on: December 04, 2015, 06:28:35 AM »
Quote
All you managed to whine about is "I don't have the time or resources to get that information" - that is your REBUTTAL not REFUTATION.
Nope, fuckwit, that's just an illustration of why your demands are no more than the meaningless, tedious timewasting I expect from you. None of that is required to deal with your assertion that the RE model alone explains alignment.

Quote
Since telescopes, by definition, are aligned based on the LATITUDE of the observer EVERYWHERE on Earth. This PROVES the Earth is spherical as latitudes are properties of spheres.
Look, the same old bullshit you ADMITTED was wrong in the thread, and you're back to whinging about it. COMPLETE FUCKING ASSERTION. You literally just assume the world is a sphere with latitudes, and then go "Well, as the earth is a sphere, it's round!" Bullshit as ever. You don't even try to consider that there could be an alternative reason to align telescopes than the one of the RE model.
Until you do that, your attempt at falsification is bullshit. That's trivially simple logic, and yet you go on huge rants desperate to hide that fact.

Quote
Your argument that the "altitude of the stars" somehow allows you to align telescopes fails - YOU can't even tell me how high Polaris is. Poor you, you don't have the time/resources to measure it. But you authoritatively state that this answers my questions - total 100% BS.
I don't need to, fuckwit, just like I don't need to tell you how fast a bus is going to know not to run in front of it. You don't need the numbers to know the end result. This remains a valid explanaton for alignment under FET, and until you can actually address the argument rather than whinging and evading, your argument remains bullshit.

Quote
Your argument that OTHER models can align telescopes so MAYBE FE can (i.e. it MIGHT be possible) is the ONLY argument you have. But YOU have no proof FE CAN actually do it.
It's the only argument I need you pathetic penguin, do you understand anything about falsification?

Let's try to put this simply. You insisted you were a teacher, you should be able to understand this. You are trying to say that FET is false: that is that A implies not B (that B is impossible). However, if it can be shown that B could imply A, your implication that A means not B is simply false.

Your argument doesn't achieve anything, you just assert and whine.

Quote
Stop spamming your DEF BS into threads. And YES, I will copy this into other threads whenever you spam your DEF BS.
*I* was willing to drop the subject - that you didn't have the time/resources to prove your DEF BS. Being nice, I gave in to your pathetic whining.
I'm not going to stop spreading the DE model just because one fuckwit would rather whine and lie than learn it. I'm going to answer the questions posed, just because you're too scared to engage honestly won't change that.
And look, more lies.

Quote
Provide your REAL MEASURABLE TESTABLE evidence, as EVERYONE requests, of your DEF BS. Put up or shut up. Stop whining you can't, then stating your model works somehow and spamming it in threads.
I have done EXACTLY THAT you PATHETIC penguin. EVERY FUCKING TIME YOU ASK ME FOR A TEST I PROVIDE ONE. EVERY TIME I AM ASKED FOR EVIDENCE I GIVE ONE. WE SPECIFICALLY TALKED ABOUT A VERIFIABLE TEST FOR DET.
I have NEVER said that I cannot, I ANSWERED YOUR DEMANDS. ARE YOU REALLY THAT INCAPABLE OF HONESTLY DISCUSSING DET THAT YOU NEED TO OPENLY LIE?
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!
DET discussions, page 8. The record stands: I answered your demands, you whined, then swiftly evaded the existence of the test.

There's your way to measure and confirm DET. And it remains unnecessary by the simple standards of evidence, elaborated and compared in the DET model. The DET model works, and your whining won't change that. It has evidence behind it, as you have been given every time you try to lie and whinge, it has falsifiable tests: and it functions better than the RE alternative.

Your lies won't change a thing. You move the goalposts, you demand more than is remotely necessary, and you whine rather than support the most fundamental aspect of your assertion that FET is falsified. Grow up.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #49 on: December 04, 2015, 07:02:34 AM »
1) So, you still can't answer any of the arguments - that are ... OMG MEASURABLE!!! You just hand-wave them away.

2) Idiot - if something matches a sphere perfectly it does not match a flat disk. Are you completely stupid? Is I have said before, this is a TELESCOPE requirement that RET fulfills and FE does not. If you know ANYTHING about astronomy and telescopes you would know this. You are arguing from willful ignorance (you don't even want to look through a telescope or investigate it) or stupidity <- more likely. Once you learn about astronomy and telescopes (hey, this is YOUR argument about learning DEF), we can discuss this like adults.

3) Wrong, astronomy and telescopes are HIGHLY mathematical. Mere hand-waving is insufficient. CLAIMING there is even a bus, without proof, how can you say it will hit ANYTHING? BS as ever.

4) As I pointed out, other models can align telescopes (definitely Hollow Earth, possibly Concave Earth), so what? That does not prove FE can. Per "Harry Potter", at Hogwarts, Dumbledore can make the main hall look like the night sky, it is possible, so what? ALL things are possible in a FANTASY. You must now demonstrate how it CAN do it in REALITY. I have demonstrated, with 3 examples, why DEF CAN'T do it in REALITY. Hell, you can't even get an airplane/ship from one place on Earth to another because you don't even know where the origin and destination are on your model (but, per you, planes and ships can go places - more hand-waving).

5) So, your only "Proof" of DEF is that if other models can align telescopes, DEF might? That is sufficient? And you want people (astronomers) to buy that BS? Why should any sane person believe in DEF based on that? Hell, other FEers don't buy into your FANTASY. You are the only one.

6) Of course you are going to spam your FANTASY with no evidence.

7) You have done nothing. Your EVIDENCE is a test you have not performed. All you said is IF someone can prove "vertical refraction" and has the properties you claim, that would be evidence. That is not evidence. Where have YOU demonstrated "vertical refraction" - with measurements? NO PROOF. NO EVIDENCE. Just a test that you expect SOMEONE ELSE to do. Poor me, I don't have the time/resources to do it - I.E. NO PROOF. NO EVIDENCE. Until someone does it - DE is a FANTASY. THAT is exactly what you have done.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #50 on: December 04, 2015, 07:46:39 AM »
Simple question that requires a precise answer (OMG! something measurable).

A friend in Sydney, Australia called. She needs to know what angle to align her telescope. Per DEF, what should I tell her?

No cheating and using RET latitudes now. Please demonstrate how you calculated that angle using DEF.

Nuf said. Watch the BS roll.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #51 on: December 04, 2015, 08:58:21 AM »
Quote
if something matches a sphere perfectly it does not match a flat disk.
So you need to DEMONSTRATE that it matches a sphere perfectly rather than assert. As of now, all you've done is give the RE explanation, said it works at a few points, and asserted the rest. You know this, you've been told this multiple times, you conceded the damn point and look, back to whining.

Quote
Wrong, astronomy and telescopes are HIGHLY mathematical. Mere hand-waving is insufficient. CLAIMING there is even a bus, without proof, how can you say it will hit ANYTHING? BS as ever.
Ah look, completely ignoring what I've said. About what I expect.

Quote
I have demonstrated, with 3 examples, why DEF CAN'T do it in REALITY.
You have demonstrated with ASSERTION. THAT IS ALL. You've whinged and whinged and spammed and spammed but all you have is your assertion that RET is true and that nothing else is, and no matter how much I ask you refuse to justify your actual claim, that the RE explanation for alignment is the ONLY POSSIBLE cause. Unless you actually do that you haven't falsified a thing. Readers, please note how Jadyyn consistently evades this point.

Quote
Why should any sane person believe in DEF based on that?
They shouldn't, that's why I offer evidence separate to this. Your obsession with telescope alignment doesn't make it somehow the only source for evidence. And until you can ACTUALLY FALSIFY DET rather than assert falsehood based on moving the goalposts and ridiculous requests, it stands.
Quote
Your EVIDENCE is a test you have not performed.
And if you had ever tried to learn the model you'd know that was not the case. The issue of vertical refraction was a falsifiable test: part of what you ask for. The evidence for DET remains, and no amount of your pathetic evasion and refusal to address a single argument will alter that.

Quote
A friend in Sydney, Australia called. She needs to know what angle to align her telescope. Per DEF, what should I tell her?

No cheating and using RET latitudes now. Please demonstrate how you calculated that angle using DEF.
You know what the answer is fuckwit, I'm not interested in wasting time. You know there's more to DET than this one notion you've got a hard on over, right? I'm content with my explanation as it stands. How about you demonstrate my explanation is impossible?
Until you do that, you haven't falsified anything, and DET stands on its merits separate to apparently the only topic you know anything about. Branch out sometime, basic logic is a good place to start.

Let's watch you bullshit around ACTUALLY ADDRESSING WHAT YOU NEED TO.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #52 on: December 04, 2015, 11:26:20 AM »
Chill guys, this thread is for factual discussing.
Earth is flat, but Jupiter is the flattest planet in our solar system.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #53 on: December 04, 2015, 11:43:41 AM »
All your ranting and raving in the previous post doesn't change the fact that DEF can't align a telescope.
Quote
Quote
A friend in Sydney, Australia called. She needs to know what angle to align her telescope. Per DEF, what should I tell her?
No cheating and using RET latitudes now. Please demonstrate how you calculated that angle using DEF.
You know what the answer is fuckwit, I'm not interested in wasting time. You know there's more to DET than this one notion you've got a hard on over, right? I'm content with my explanation as it stands. How about you demonstrate my explanation is impossible?
Until you do that, you haven't falsified anything, and DET stands on its merits separate to apparently the only topic you know anything about. Branch out sometime, basic logic is a good place to start.

Let's watch you bullshit around ACTUALLY ADDRESSING WHAT YOU NEED TO.
Of course *I* know the answer - RET latitude of Sydney, Australia - 33.8650°

So providing an answer to a direct question from the REAL world is wasting your time. And you actually want people to learn your DEF BS?

Bottom line - You are demonstrating exactly what EVERYONE expected - no actual value. DEF can not align telescopes. PERIOD.

All your arguments above are totally meaningless derailments. Blah, Blah, Blah... what is the angle in Sydney? .... I don't know... DEF can not align telescopes. This is where the rubber meets the road.

Since it can not align telescopes and you have no idea where in the Earth Neptune even is, or if it even exists, why bring in DEF into the discussion in the first place?
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #54 on: December 04, 2015, 12:08:00 PM »
All your arguments above are totally meaningless derailments.
Evasion as per usual.

Quote
DEF can not align telescopes.
Prove it. All you've provided evidence for is that, so far, with my limited resources and focus on actually important aspects of DET, the exist model does not. This is not the same as categorically stating DET cannot align telescopes; and your entire claim of falsification relies on demonstrating that.
So, any time now.

Quote
Since it can not align telescopes and you have no idea where in the Earth Neptune even is, or if it even exists, why bring in DEF into the discussion in the first place?
Because it answers the question proposed, and your obsession with derailing threads and mocking a model you've never learned is just childish.

Quote
Chill guys, this thread is for factual discussing.
My statements have been given. Hold Jadyyn responsible for his rambling and derailing.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #55 on: December 04, 2015, 02:35:26 PM »
Prove it - done already Reply #47.

So, per OP, how do you know Neptune exists, per DEF that you threw into this thread?

Are you now saying satellites (Hubble telescope) exist? Voyager, a space probe, exists?
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #56 on: December 04, 2015, 10:23:33 PM »
Prove it - done already Reply #47.

So, per OP, how do you know Neptune exists, per DEF that you threw into this thread?

Are you now saying satellites (Hubble telescope) exist? Voyager, a space probe, exists?

Just like classical trash FE, DE is also completely falsified by the fact that satellites are up there. The ISS existance automatically refutes all flat earth models.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #57 on: December 05, 2015, 04:42:38 AM »
Quote
Prove it - done already Reply #47.
No, you asserted. THAT IS ALL YOU CAN DO. WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO PROVIDE ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR CLAIMS?!

Quote
So, per OP, how do you know Neptune exists, per DEF that you threw into this thread?
Done, fuckwit. And to be honest, I don't care either way. Just one of the many trivialities you're obsessed with because you can't manage an argument on the important issues.

Quote
Are you now saying satellites (Hubble telescope) exist? Voyager, a space probe, exists?
What the fuck are you on about?!

Quote
Just like classical trash FE, DE is also completely falsified by the fact that satellites are up there. The ISS existance automatically refutes all flat earth models.
Ah look,more ignorant assertion. The ISS has been debates countless times on this forum, beating a dead horse isn't an argument.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #58 on: December 05, 2015, 04:55:36 AM »
Quote
Quote
Prove it - done already Reply #47.
No, you asserted. THAT IS ALL YOU CAN DO. WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO PROVIDE ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR CLAIMS?!
I assert nothing. I have proved it with my 3 examples in Reply #47. Refute them.

The rest, no specifics/measurements again. Oh well. These trivialities disprove ALL FE models. That is why I am obsessed. Why are you obsessed the your DE fantasy?

As this thread, per OP, discusses Neptune, you have yet to demonstrate how you know Neptune even exists.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Geocentric? more like Egocentric!
« Reply #59 on: December 05, 2015, 05:05:44 AM »
I assert nothing. I have proved it with my 3 examples in Reply #47. Refute them.
There is nothing to refute. The only thing I see that even approaches an attempt to refute the DE explanation has no justification behind it; just assertion.
You always demand I waste time quoting myself; now do the same. Where are your three examples in reply 47?

Quote
The rest, no specifics/measurements again. Oh well. These trivialities disprove ALL FE models. That is why I am obsessed. Why are you obsessed the your DE fantasy?
I'm spreading the best FE model. You're spreading assertion that you clearly knows fails to falsify a model, because if you could falsify FET you wouldn't need the details of my model: you'd be able to falsify it as it stands. Instead, you're incapable, insisting you've won simply because I'm not going to waste time and resources developing a triviality which only you're obsessed with.

Quote
As this thread, per OP, discusses Neptune, you have yet to demonstrate how you know Neptune even exists.
Which is irrelevant to the OP, and already done. You're being pathetic, as ever.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.