The logic behind the DET model

  • 141 Replies
  • 19373 Views
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #120 on: December 22, 2015, 01:50:10 PM »
Those I can name off the top of my head...
So, evading even trying to defend the incoherent argument you were making, and replacing it with bullshit that's already been dealt with countless times before. You refused to ever bring your alignment argument to any more than assertion, opting to evade every single time I asked you to justify your assertion. The same inexplicable earthshine as ever, despite the fact it's verifiably false. Eclipses already addressed by DET, as are phases, and the assertion that the explanation is false is meaningless. The satellite argument remains refuted by even classical FET because REers consistently refuse to justify the claim that satellites are in space (the best argument founded on the assertion two dishes point to the same satellite), and good old fashioned whinging that I don't have the resources to map out the entire planet singlehandedly as though that was proof of anything.

Yep, we're definitely done. Good riddance. Evading the topic at hand to whine about bullshit you've already had addressed, and refusing to even acknowledge the refutations. That's all you do.
No longer wasting time on you.

Quote
No one has run away and what clarification do you fucking need?! Can you, or can you not, use the model you have to say where to point a dish. Even FET can do this but you still want to call what you have a real model.
Wasn't talking to you, fuckwit.

Quote
Your entire model is just a collection of notes on how you think things are happening based on how you observe them.
THAT IS ALL SCIENCE IS YOU BLITHERING IDIOT. Your bullshit would refute RET if indeed it counted as any kind of refutation. After all, that's just interpreted observations: and yet tests magically stop counting as soon as they aren't applied to RET.
How about you try to not be a hypcorite for once?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #121 on: December 22, 2015, 02:18:23 PM »
You're truly hilarious in a very boring way, JR. It seems you think that asserting again and again that you've addressed every question put to you 'countless times' that it gets you off the hook from answering. Er, it doesn't.

Here is a chance to prove me wrong: Show us where you have dealt with the following questions about your DE either here or your elsewhere:

Quote
Eclipses
Quote
Moon phases
Quote
Sunrises/sunsets
Quote
Measuring aether
Quote
Aether bending light from the center of the DE and how this works

Any more evading or insults will mean you haven't answered or don't have an answer to any of these questions. Honestly, how hard would it be to copy+paste an answer to any of the above questions if you've explained it at length? You not doing it just confirms to everyone your DEF is a pile of shit you shat out one day whilst on the john.

We're all waiting, once again.

THAT IS ALL SCIENCE IS YOU BLITHERING IDIOT.

No it isn't, you clown. Science starts with observation, from there one must construct a hypothesis, from there one must test that hypothesis. If the experiment(s) contradicts said hypothesis, one must go back to the drawing board and construct another hypothesis.. and so on and so forth.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #122 on: December 22, 2015, 02:21:38 PM »
Show us where you have dealt with the following questions about your DE either here or your elsewhere:
Click the link in my sig. There, done. Only one that isn't explicitly addressed is the poorly defined 'measuring aether' but we can measure the consequences easily, and the consequences are also given in that link.


Quote
Any more evading or insults will mean you haven't answered or don't have an answer to any of these questions. Honestly, how hard would it be to copy+paste an answer to any of the above questions if you've explained it at length?
No evasion, just tedium. Why should I waste time copying and pasting? the answers wouldn't make sense ripped out from the context of DET.


Quote
No it isn't, you clown. Science starts with observation, from there one must construct a hypothesis, from there one must test that hypothesis. If the experiment(s) contradicts said hypothesis, one must go back to the drawing board and construct another hypothesis.. and so on and so forth.
And as there are multiple experiments in favor of DET, done.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #123 on: December 22, 2015, 02:43:12 PM »
Show us where you have dealt with the following questions about your DE either here or your elsewhere:
Click the link in my sig. There, done. Only one that isn't explicitly addressed is the poorly defined 'measuring aether' but we can measure the consequences easily, and the consequences are also given in that link.


Quote
Any more evading or insults will mean you haven't answered or don't have an answer to any of these questions. Honestly, how hard would it be to copy+paste an answer to any of the above questions if you've explained it at length?
No evasion, just tedium. Why should I waste time copying and pasting? the answers wouldn't make sense ripped out from the context of DET.


Quote
No it isn't, you clown. Science starts with observation, from there one must construct a hypothesis, from there one must test that hypothesis. If the experiment(s) contradicts said hypothesis, one must go back to the drawing board and construct another hypothesis.. and so on and so forth.
And as there are multiple experiments in favor of DET, done.
See, not only did not answer my last post at all but he cannot answer you either. It is not in the model in your sig and you have 1 experiment for DET but you have not done it yet. If it is in the model, for now, just take one of those questions, and copy and paste a section of the text that answers one of those questions. What section in your model do YOU think answers this question? (I guess giving the section so we can look it up is also acceptable.)
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.

Re: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #124 on: December 22, 2015, 02:44:22 PM »
Show us where you have dealt with the following questions about your DE either here or your elsewhere:
Click the link in my sig. There, done. Only one that isn't explicitly addressed is the poorly defined 'measuring aether' but we can measure the consequences easily, and the consequences are also given in that link.


Quote
Any more evading or insults will mean you haven't answered or don't have an answer to any of these questions. Honestly, how hard would it be to copy+paste an answer to any of the above questions if you've explained it at length?
No evasion, just tedium. Why should I waste time copying and pasting? the answers wouldn't make sense ripped out from the context of DET.


Quote
No it isn't, you clown. Science starts with observation, from there one must construct a hypothesis, from there one must test that hypothesis. If the experiment(s) contradicts said hypothesis, one must go back to the drawing board and construct another hypothesis.. and so on and so forth.
And as there are multiple experiments in favor of DET, done.
How do we measure the consequences, please describe in detail.

Re: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #125 on: December 22, 2015, 02:50:19 PM »
Click the link in my sig. There, done. Only one that isn't explicitly addressed is the poorly defined 'measuring aether' but we can measure the consequences easily, and the consequences are also given in that link.

This is literally all I could find about sunsets, eclipses and phases in the wall-of-rambling-text you call a model:

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic
In the center (of the DE) would be the largest: a spotlight-star like all the others, that shines in one direction. This light would be transmitted by the similar currents of aether to those responsible for crossing the equator, over to the tops and bottoms of the Earth. This would be the Sun.
While this may seem counterintuitive, this is only a result of thinking in RE terms. It follows very neatly from previous established DE facts.

In this central plane would form also others. We call these the moon, and the planets. It's simple to see how most of this works. For example, the moon rotates, and so a limited fraction of its light would make it to the Earth. Similarly, as the Sun rotates with the motion of the whirlpool, it will be cut off, causing the sunset.
An eclipse would be caused, clearly, by the moon passing in front of the Sun.

We can see, as well, that the presence of the rotating metal Sun in the center of the Earth will have other effects: it will cause the Earth's magnetic field, and geothermal energy.

So, if I or anyone else tells you that this either makes no sense, does not contain enough information or is simply digital excrement, you'd simply refer us back to the text? What about follow up questions, same thing? Because I'm about to tell you I still have no idea how sunsets, sunrises, moon phases or eclipses work. No idea at all.

Quote
Why should I waste time copying and pasting? the answers wouldn't make sense ripped out from the context of DET

So... you think explaining how your model works is tedious, even just copying and pasting? Wow. It seems you don't want anyone to buy into it.

Also, ripped out of context? What? Aren't you the creator of this model? Couldn't you simply add context? Why would this be hard? At worst, it would take a bit more effort but it would mean that you give context to the information if you felt it was missing...

Jesus.

Quote
And as there are multiple experiments in favor of DET, done.

Such as...? For the love of the DE gods, do not refer me back to the text, I've read it multiple times and I haven't seen any specific experiment performed which would favour a DE over a RE.

*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #126 on: December 22, 2015, 03:16:03 PM »
Logical deduction IS his experiments...
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #127 on: December 22, 2015, 03:28:44 PM »
Quote
How do we measure the consequences, please describe in detail.
No. You're wasting time. You only ever waste time. Do you really think a one-sentence vague post means the slightest thing? I have no desire to go 'in detail' for someone too lazy to bother with a meaningful post. What, exactly, do you take issue with?

Quote
So, if I or anyone else tells you that this either makes no sense, does not contain enough information or is simply digital excrement, you'd simply refer us back to the text? What about follow up questions, same thing? Because I'm about to tell you I still have no idea how sunsets, sunrises, moon phases or eclipses work. No idea at all.
I'm always happy to clarify when follow-up questions are asked, despite your baseless assertion to the contrary. However, you actually have to say what isn't clear, rather than whining "Oh, it doesn't make sense!" and expecting me to read your mind.
Note, also, of course it won't make sense if you haven't even tried to understand the model that underpins in.

Quote
Also, ripped out of context? What? Aren't you the creator of this model? Couldn't you simply add context? Why would this be hard? At worst, it would take a bit more effort but it would mean that you give context to the information if you felt it was missing...
The context is given in the thread. It's quite a bit of effort to explain the entire model from scratch, and quite frankly I can't be bothered if i'm dealing with someone who's too lazy to actually read the given model. Why should I waste time on someone who refuses to read the model?

Quote
Such as...? For the love of the DE gods, do not refer me back to the text, I've read it multiple times and I haven't seen any specific experiment performed which would favour a DE over a RE.
And you're moving the goalposts then.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #128 on: December 22, 2015, 03:31:31 PM »
And just like that, evaded every question.
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.

Re: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #129 on: December 22, 2015, 04:24:22 PM »
I'm always happy to clarify when follow-up questions are asked, despite your baseless assertion to the contrary. However, you actually have to say what isn't clear, rather than whining "Oh, it doesn't make sense!" and expecting me to read your mind.

Ok then, I'll stick to one thing to keep it clean and simple: sunrise and sunset. I do not understand how (roughly) one half of each 'disk' is lit up by sunshine at any one time. As I understand it, the 'top' disk is the northern hemisphere and the 'bottom' disk is the southern hemisphere. How, again, are both lit up at the same time by a single sun in the center of the earth? I've seen a few diagrams of yours, but I cannot for the life of me fathom how the aether (whirlpools?) depicts the sun as a rotating sphere (as observed) in a single point in the sky.

Also, I do not understand what 'as the sun rotates with motion of the whirlpool, it will be cutoff, causing sunset' means. Could you explain this in detail, or better yet, draw a detailed diagram? What causes it to be 'cutoff'? Cutoff from what, the whirlpool? How does this work, and what is the mechanism? The sun is always shining over half of the world, isn't it? This doesn't seem congruous with how we know sunrises/sunsets occur which is by the sun rising above and below the horizon respectively. This seems to me to be the sun being simply obscured by something physical (the earth), not being 'cutoff' from something. Could you please expand on this?

Quote
Note, also, of course it won't make sense if you haven't even tried to understand the model that underpins in.

Oh, I've tried alright. The inference of you saying this is that those who say they don't understand your model are either not trying to understand it or are just plain stupid. Pretty rude.

Quote
The context is given in the thread. It's quite a bit of effort to explain the entire model from scratch, and quite frankly I can't be bothered if i'm dealing with someone who's too lazy to actually read the given model. Why should I waste time on someone who refuses to read the model?

I've always thought that, if someone has a very firm grasp of the subject matter at hand, it shouldn't take much effort to explain it. I feel like this should apply to you about your own DE.

Quote
And you're moving the goalposts then.

Mmmm, no I'm not. Classic evasion. Once again, what experiments performed support a DE over a RE?

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #130 on: December 22, 2015, 04:42:40 PM »
Quote
How, again, are both lit up at the same time by a single sun in the center of the earth? I've seen a few diagrams of yours, but I cannot for the life of me fathom how the aether (whirlpools?) depicts the sun as a rotating sphere (as observed) in a single point in the sky.
Also, I do not understand what 'as the sun rotates with motion of the whirlpool, it will be cutoff, causing sunset' means.
The image is carried along the currents of aether. As it's further down, the currents lead the image to a higher point in the sky, projecting its light. The same happens to the top and bottom, causing the illumination over most of the Earth. Only a single face provides light.
As the Sun rotates, the projected image will move across the sky, carried by a different path of aether. Sunset is caused by the edge of the lit face of the Sun: this is the cutoff. What gets projected at sunrise/set is the image of part of the lit face of the Sun, along with the non-lit rock, hence why only part of the Sun is visible: more coming into view as the Sun rotates, and the lit face rotates fully into view, past the non-lit rock.

Quote
Oh, I've tried alright. The inference of you saying this is that those who say they don't understand your model are either not trying to understand it or are just plain stupid. Pretty rude.
Infer what you want. I'm simply saying that there is no possible way to expect to fully understand, for example, the Sun, if you don't understand the design of a star and the properties and flow of aether.

Quote
I've always thought that, if someone has a very firm grasp of the subject matter at hand, it shouldn't take much effort to explain it. I feel like this should apply to you about your own DE.
An explanation relies on two people: the explainer, and explainee. It doesn't take much effort, it's just unutterably tedious to have to repeat pages of information on the whim of someone who may well be a troll. I see no reason why I should need to do so: the link explains the model in the terms I would use (a rewrite to clarify is pending, and awaiting the feedback of a beta who seems to have vanished).

Quote
Mmmm, no I'm not. Classic evasion. Once again, what experiments performed support a DE over a RE?
It's not evasion: it's a statement of fact. That's not what I claimed: I said simply that there are experiments that are in favor of DET. That is, experiments that provide evidence of DET. You are the one who moved the goalposts to what you now ask for.
There are experiments that could prove it over RET, but I don't have the resources to perform them. I favor DET because it relies on fewer assumptions.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #131 on: December 22, 2015, 04:48:29 PM »
What experiments do you keep referring to? You yourself admit to only having one in the model and you never did it.
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.

Re: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #132 on: December 22, 2015, 07:11:17 PM »
What experiments do you keep referring to? You yourself admit to only having one in the model and you never did it.

"Therefore, if you want experiments to justify DET, there is your answer: all of them. Their predictions match with DET, far more than they do with the inelegant patchwork of RET."

LMFAO



?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #133 on: December 22, 2015, 09:02:43 PM »
Hilarious, absolutely hilarious...

Since the traditional, single disk FE model is destroyed (DEF blows it off with just a hand-wave) - you can't see the S. Celestial Pole from above the disk, hence DEF with 2 poles - DEF is THE FE model. Like JRoweSkeptic's sig - "Dual Earth Theory (sic), the best FE model"

The funniest thing is that ONLY JRoweSkeptic, out of ALL the people on Earth understands it! ONE person! THAT is the Flat Earth Society. If he dies, FE dies too...

OMG, that is just too funny...
“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: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #134 on: December 23, 2015, 12:00:07 AM »
Hilarious, absolutely hilarious...

Since the traditional, single disk FE model is destroyed (DEF blows it off with just a hand-wave) - you can't see the S. Celestial Pole from above the disk, hence DEF with 2 poles - DEF is THE FE model. Like JRoweSkeptic's sig - "Dual Earth Theory (sic), the best FE model"

The funniest thing is that ONLY JRoweSkeptic, out of ALL the people on Earth understands it! ONE person! THAT is the Flat Earth Society. If he dies, FE dies too...

OMG, that is just too funny...

 :D

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #135 on: December 23, 2015, 03:35:37 AM »
"Therefore, if you want experiments to justify DET, there is your answer: all of them. Their predictions match with DET, far more than they do with the inelegant patchwork of RET."

LMFAO
Incredulity is not a refutation.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #136 on: December 23, 2015, 11:42:06 AM »
"Therefore, if you want experiments to justify DET, there is your answer: all of them. Their predictions match with DET, far more than they do with the inelegant patchwork of RET."

LMFAO
Incredulity is not a refutation.

When you say "all of them", do you mean that every single experiment done on earth matches your theory?

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #137 on: December 23, 2015, 12:44:14 PM »
"Therefore, if you want experiments to justify DET, there is your answer: all of them. Their predictions match with DET, far more than they do with the inelegant patchwork of RET."

LMFAO
Incredulity is not a refutation.

When you say "all of them", do you mean that every single experiment done on earth matches your theory?

With the caveat of reliability/corroboration, the same as any scientific model. Every experiment is in line with what DET predicts, whether because of a shared aspect (unrelated details like chemistry) or because of an accurate yet different explanation.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #138 on: December 23, 2015, 12:47:54 PM »
"Therefore, if you want experiments to justify DET, there is your answer: all of them. Their predictions match with DET, far more than they do with the inelegant patchwork of RET."

LMFAO
Incredulity is not a refutation.

When you say "all of them", do you mean that every single experiment done on earth matches your theory?

With the caveat of reliability/corroboration, the same as any scientific model. Every experiment is in line with what DET predicts, whether because of a shared aspect (unrelated details like chemistry) or because of an accurate yet different explanation.
So basically all you are doing is cherry picking meaning from real science to make it apply to your theory...
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #139 on: December 23, 2015, 01:28:43 PM »
"Therefore, if you want experiments to justify DET, there is your answer: all of them. Their predictions match with DET, far more than they do with the inelegant patchwork of RET."

LMFAO
Incredulity is not a refutation.

When you say "all of them", do you mean that every single experiment done on earth matches your theory?

With the caveat of reliability/corroboration, the same as any scientific model. Every experiment is in line with what DET predicts, whether because of a shared aspect (unrelated details like chemistry) or because of an accurate yet different explanation.
This of course is not true.

1) As I have demonstrated with the "telescope alignment" thread, THOUSANDS of telescopes are aligned (REAL experiments) and match the latitude of the observer. Many telescopes are aligned daily (REAL experiments). These disprove DEF (all FLAT Earth models). These are the "Eratosthenes Experiment" in reverse from thousands of places. They are accurate to minutes and seconds of arc. These definitively demonstrate/prove the Earth is spherical.

2) As DEF does not know where anyone/anything is (except the poles and equators), how can it align a telescope, align a TV dish, travel from one place to another on Earth or do anything that requires knowing where the observer is (each is a REAL experiment)? What can it predict with any certainty?

JRowe just keeps spreading the BS that DEF has evidence. Not true.

RET can and DOES do these ALL the time. It is true.
“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."

*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #140 on: December 23, 2015, 01:54:14 PM »
He is basically saying all that will still be the same based on how we would observe the world, but that DEF is the reason and not what the science says is the reason.
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.

Re: The logic behind the DET model
« Reply #141 on: December 23, 2015, 02:20:33 PM »
If that were true, he would be the most famous person in the world. Such  great discovery would make headlines all over the world.