Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?

  • 223 Replies
  • 26062 Views
*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12176
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #210 on: December 29, 2017, 04:52:51 AM »
Everybody is getting sick of your tedious insistence on telling everybody else what they are doing wrong, yet never getting involved in the debates yourself.

I guess that you don't get into debates because you can't.
So I point out issues with what people are saying and simultaneously don't get involved in the debate? Pretty impressive.

You don't seem to know what a debate is. Hint: just because someone calls you out, doesn't mean they're not debating. Pointing out a bad argument is literally the basic premise of debate.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #211 on: December 29, 2017, 05:52:40 AM »
<< Jane's one sided support for her poor down trodden pet flat earthers ignored >>
Now you show us just how to debunk this flat earth hypothesis correctly.
So it's ok for you to tell me what I should post, but bad for me to do the same? Ok then.

Here’s a question for you. Why are you always angry?
I'm not, I just don't have the energy to couch what I say for the benefit of your ego every single time I have to make a post.

I tell you what the problem with John is, self proclaimed leading Zetetic scientist of our time, is he makes things up. When asked to back his statements up, he disappears. He does it on every topic on which he contributes.
Translation: he doesn't regularly post in the forum and answer every single bit of abuse that gets thrown at him, so he must be running away. He's averaging about one post a day over the christmas-new year period from my last look at his profile, and the one in this thread you're insisting he ran away from is literally his last post.
I'm sorry his life doesn't revolve around you. Grow up.

You should watch your blood pressure, ranting at the rate you do is not good for one. Time appears not to be an issue for you, unfortunately.
Though the thread once mode has been side tracked.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2017, 05:54:20 AM by Nightsky »
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #212 on: December 29, 2017, 05:58:05 AM »
Everybody is getting sick of your tedious insistence on telling everybody else what they are doing wrong, yet never getting involved in the debates yourself.

I guess that you don't get into debates because you can't.
So I point out issues with what people are saying and simultaneously don't get involved in the debate? Pretty impressive.

You don't seem to know what a debate is. Hint: just because someone calls you out, doesn't mean they're not debating. Pointing out a bad argument is literally the basic premise of debate.

As I said before you are the 'bad argument queen' as you use them all the time.
But why is mathematics, and science for that matter, so uncommon in FE theory. To get back to the debate you could possibly present an argument, a good one please, to possibly refute the statement if you happen disagree with it.
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12176
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #213 on: December 29, 2017, 06:05:27 AM »
As I said before you are the 'bad argument queen' as you use them all the time.
But why is mathematics, and science for that matter, so uncommon in FE theory. To get back to the debate you could possibly present an argument, a good one please, to possibly refute the statement if you happen disagree with it.
Answered that on the first page. Problem is, you never make informed arguments, and you adamantly refuse to refine one if an issue's pointed out.

I am genuinely baffled by what you're trying to achieve. Clearly you're not planning to convince anyone, FEer or FE-open, as they could see right through that kind of  posting. You're not contributing anything new, the only people you might dissuade are those that wouldn't need it. Are you just here to be obnoxious? Let me know so I can block you and save us both the trouble of putting up with your nonsense.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #214 on: December 29, 2017, 06:08:16 AM »
As I said before you are the 'bad argument queen' as you use them all the time.
But why is mathematics, and science for that matter, so uncommon in FE theory. To get back to the debate you could possibly present an argument, a good one please, to possibly refute the statement if you happen disagree with it.
Answered that on the first page. Problem is, you never make informed arguments, and you adamantly refuse to refine one if an issue's pointed out.

I am genuinely baffled by what you're trying to achieve. Clearly you're not planning to convince anyone, FEer or FE-open, as they could see right through that kind of  posting. You're not contributing anything new, the only people you might dissuade are those that wouldn't need it. Are you just here to be obnoxious? Let me know so I can block you and save us both the trouble of putting up with your nonsense.

So you have nothing to add to the debate.
Blocking, for what, not agreeing with you? Im afraid you are the one being rude and angy, Im just trying to find out why FE people appear to ignore mathematics and science and see no reasons for things like evidence to back up their beliefs.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2017, 06:11:29 AM by Nightsky »
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12176
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #215 on: December 29, 2017, 06:10:10 AM »
But why is mathematics, and science for that matter, so uncommon in FE theory. To get back to the debate you could possibly present an argument, a good one please, to possibly refute the statement if you happen disagree with it.
Answered that on the first page.
So you have nothing to add to the debate.
If that's what you got from what I said, sure, have fun.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

54N

  • 173
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #216 on: December 29, 2017, 07:40:08 AM »
Maths is avoided at all costs in FE hypotheses because it easily proves the earth to be approximately spherical.

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #217 on: December 29, 2017, 08:06:51 AM »
Maths is avoided at all costs in FE hypotheses because it easily proves the earth to be approximately spherical.

Math is avoided at all costs by FE supporters because it interrupts their fantasy.
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #218 on: December 29, 2017, 09:15:59 AM »
Maths is avoided at all costs in FE hypotheses because it easily proves the earth to be approximately spherical.

Math is avoided at all costs by FE supporters because it interrupts their fantasy.

How true !
Math is related to science and reality.
Two words that are "No-No's" in the FE vocabulary.
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 !

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 47928
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #219 on: December 29, 2017, 10:52:06 AM »
<< Jane's one sided support for her poor down trodden pet flat earthers ignored >>
Now you show us just how to debunk this flat earth hypothesis correctly.
So it's ok for you to tell me what I should post, but bad for me to do the same? Ok then.
Everybody is getting sick of your tedious insistence on telling everybody else what they are doing wrong, yet never getting involved in the debates yourself.

I guess that you don't get into debates because you can't.

Nope, I never get sick of Jane calling you guys out. 
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #220 on: December 29, 2017, 12:35:53 PM »
Have you noticed whenever you ask John a question.....he disappears.
John is not the only FE Magician.
I have noticed a  lot of other FE's are good at the disappearing act ! 😆

Yes, FEers' lives should always revolve around answering questions on an internet forum to people who really don't care about the answers, how dare they have other priorities  >:(

He doesn't have any other priorities that you know about. The man is full of bullshit. He claimed to have written a book years ago - has anyone seen it? Why does he never comment about it when asked a straight question? Why does he never explain certain aspects of his non-euclidian ramblings when directly questioned, yet finds time to muse on philosophy on the forums as if he was some toff in a smoking jacket with a monocle and a cigarette in a long holder?
If you're defending him then you've been taken in by a con artist.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12176
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #221 on: December 29, 2017, 12:45:02 PM »
He doesn't have any other priorities that you know about.
I think it's a fair bet that all the users of this forum do other things with their lives. I don't know about you, but seems reasonable to me.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

JackBlack

  • 18591
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #222 on: December 29, 2017, 01:45:11 PM »
Yes, FEers' lives should always revolve around answering questions on an internet forum to people who really don't care about the answers, how dare they have other priorities  >:(
No, they are free to do as they please. They don't need to come here.
But they chose to come here, and chose to spout pure bullshit. If people question that bullshit, they should be able to back it up or admit they were wrong.
If they aren't willing to back up their claims they shouldn't make them in the first place. (Especially as all it does is make FE look even more pathetic, but that is why you pity them and defend them so much isn't it?)

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #223 on: December 29, 2017, 02:10:38 PM »
The man is full of bullshit. He claimed to have written a book years ago - has anyone seen it? Why does he never comment about it when asked a straight question? Why does he never explain certain aspects of his non-euclidian ramblings when directly questioned, yet finds time to muse on philosophy on the forums as if he was some toff in a smoking jacket with a monocle and a cigarette in a long holder?
If you're defending him then you've been taken in by a con artist.
As far as I can see, John Davis no more believes the earth is flat than you and I do.
He just wants to make a big name for himself, but successful as he seems to be in his profession he knows that no-one will remember him for that.

Also, he knows that there is no kudos to be gained, nor challenge in arguing against the silly flat earth ideas here on YouTube.
As all Globe supporters here know, that is a thankless task. We get labelled as shills, NASA lovers and far worse from brotherhood of the dome.

So John Davis tries to "big-note" himself by making claims like:
The Ferrari Effect functions due to the non-euclidean geometry I discovered. You clearly don't understand it, and I find it funny and arrogant you think you know the intent of my words and diagrams better than I do myself.
Then he has the temerity to assert that: "EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY PROVES THE EARTH IS FLAT" a totally false and deceptive claim!

Einstein's relativity, special or general, does not "PROVE THE EARTH IS FLAT"!
He seems to claim to justifuy it in EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY PROVES THE EARTH IS FLAT, May 23, 2016 JohnDavis but all I see are empty meaningless words.

Then asserts:
You could not be more incorrect. I am not a failed man, but the leading Zetetic scientist of our time. I have advanced our knowledge of the universe more so than any one other person since Rowbotham himself. When the veil is lifted from the eyes of the world, they will sing songs to laud the sacrifices that have led to what we know about the flat earth.
I am immortalized by my work, not by mention of it however.
How can anyone take a person who makes claims like that seriously?

And to top it off:
Yes, I am the most influential man of our time.

I have no idea whether John Davis is worth Two millions, but this does seem appropriate:
Quote
With all his heart and soul and mind and strength,
To love his maker, for he was SELF-MADE!
a Self-made, self-trained, self-willed, self-satisfied, He was, himself, his daily boast and pride.


From: Two millions. By William Allen Butler, 1825-1902.

I have not dared bring this up before now, but John Davis is simply getting too much for me to stomach.
Quote from: reliable unnamed source
John Davis told me it's easy to argue Round Earth.
There's facts and reality on that side.

Arguing Flat Earth takes skill and finesse.
Apologies to the source for whom I have the greatest respect.