Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?

  • 223 Replies
  • 26981 Views
*

Username

  • President Of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 17255
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #180 on: December 27, 2017, 08:45:44 AM »
For those naysayers, Science Without Numbers does a great start of proving this:
Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why.
Quantum Ab Hoc

1 + 1 = 2
"The above proposition is occasionally useful." - Bertrand Russell

*

9111315

  • 114
  • Inglorious Deplorable
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #181 on: December 27, 2017, 09:11:54 AM »

*

JackBlack

  • 18969
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #182 on: December 27, 2017, 12:12:18 PM »
For those naysayers, Science Without Numbers does a great start of proving this:
Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why.
Meanwhile you provide nothing to back it up, and people have objected to it and explained why it is wrong.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42480
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #183 on: December 27, 2017, 02:09:01 PM »
Why is it an error to assume rotational symmetry?

The earth is not a perfect disc, there is an elliptical nature to it's rotation.
Interesting.  I thought that it was generally accepted that the flat earth does not rotate at all, let alone elliptically.  Please describe this elliptical nature.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Username

  • President Of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 17255
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #184 on: December 27, 2017, 09:58:18 PM »
For those naysayers, Science Without Numbers does a great start of proving this:
Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why.
Meanwhile you provide nothing to back it up, and people have objected to it and explained why it is wrong.
I have not, but the cited book has. Take of it what you will, but get off my back. Your level of explanation is not suitable for proof of a bottle of alcohol, let alone matters of this import. Science With Out Numbers, as its name might hint, gives a solid argument for mathematics being a tool that could be replaced by many other abstract constructs.
Quantum Ab Hoc

1 + 1 = 2
"The above proposition is occasionally useful." - Bertrand Russell

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #185 on: December 28, 2017, 12:31:17 AM »
There is no math that shows the FE model is wrong, unless you are talking about the strawman FE you tried to knock down.

I think the simple calculation that gives the diameter of the earth shoots you down sir. The problem with you John is just because you wish to live with your head in a bucket and ignore reality, you mustnít expect other people to do this nor take you seriously. That the the earth is a sphere is a fact, while itís a fact for some strange reason you donít like, does not change anything.
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 #186 on: December 28, 2017, 12:36:35 AM »
Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why. There are countless articles written on math, and the math used to predict such things as eclipses, but no one on this forum has the skill to read or fully comprehend them. They don't give us any truth, they give us the semblance of it.
Truth cannot exist without understanding.

Joe

You obviously have no understanding of mathematics . Mathematics cares not a jot about inferiority or superiority as they are your invented fictions.
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

*

JackBlack

  • 18969
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #187 on: December 28, 2017, 01:27:22 AM »
I have not, but the cited book has.
That is just your claim, until you back it up with something substantial, I will dismiss it as crap.

Your level of explanation is not suitable for proof of a bottle of alcohol, let alone matters of this import.
Yet you have been unable to point out anything wrong with my explanation and instead make a pathetic appeal to some book.

Science With Out Numbers, as its name might hint, gives a solid argument for mathematics being a tool that could be replaced by many other abstract constructs.
PROVE IT!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #188 on: December 28, 2017, 02:17:41 AM »
For those naysayers, Science Without Numbers does a great start of proving this:
Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why.
Why do you spend so much time trying to do no more than show how smart you are?

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #189 on: December 28, 2017, 02:59:10 AM »
For those naysayers, Science Without Numbers does a great start of proving this:
Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why.
Meanwhile you provide nothing to back it up, and people have objected to it and explained why it is wrong.
I have not, but the cited book has. Take of it what you will, but get off my back. Your level of explanation is not suitable for proof of a bottle of alcohol, let alone matters of this import. Science With Out Numbers, as its name might hint, gives a solid argument for mathematics being a tool that could be replaced by many other abstract constructs.

Could you possibly name these other abstract constructs that you refer to.
Would you consider yourself a Nominalist?
« Last Edit: December 28, 2017, 03:12:25 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

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 927
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #190 on: December 28, 2017, 03:51:59 AM »
For those naysayers, Science Without Numbers does a great start of proving this:
Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why.
Meanwhile you provide nothing to back it up, and people have objected to it and explained why it is wrong.
I have not, but the cited book has. Take of it what you will, but get off my back. Your level of explanation is not suitable for proof of a bottle of alcohol, let alone matters of this import. Science With Out Numbers, as its name might hint, gives a solid argument for mathematics being a tool that could be replaced by many other abstract constructs.

Build a house substituting abstract concepts for math.
Nullius in Verba

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #191 on: December 28, 2017, 07:06:38 AM »
Iím thinking that maybe infinite plane could work. Itís the only way that the Sun could get to the horizon. Using trigonometry, we know that the apparent angle of the Sun in the sky is the inverse tangent of the altitude of the Sun divided by the distance from the observer to the point directly below it. With any Earthly distances, the Sun never reaches the horizon. But if the Sun could be infinitely far away...
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 927
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #192 on: December 28, 2017, 08:44:59 AM »
Iím thinking that maybe infinite plane could work. Itís the only way that the Sun could get to the horizon. Using trigonometry, we know that the apparent angle of the Sun in the sky is the inverse tangent of the altitude of the Sun divided by the distance from the observer to the point directly below it. With any Earthly distances, the Sun never reaches the horizon. But if the Sun could be infinitely far away...
That would be some trick since the Sun is always visible somewhere on Earth. How can it be infinitely far away from Ohio and directly overhead in India at the same time?
Nullius in Verba

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #193 on: December 28, 2017, 01:27:49 PM »
Iím thinking that maybe infinite plane could work. Itís the only way that the Sun could get to the horizon. Using trigonometry, we know that the apparent angle of the Sun in the sky is the inverse tangent of the altitude of the Sun divided by the distance from the observer to the point directly below it. With any Earthly distances, the Sun never reaches the horizon. But if the Sun could be infinitely far away...
That would be some trick since the Sun is always visible somewhere on Earth. How can it be infinitely far away from Ohio and directly overhead in India at the same time?

Oh, sorry. Under official FE rules, you donít have to have a thoroughly consistent model. You only have to explain one aspect of the universe at a time. If someone challenges you to align two or three facts at the same time, then you can change the subject. For example, did you know that Pizzagate was actually a cover up operation for NASA lies?
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #194 on: December 28, 2017, 01:55:22 PM »
For those naysayers, Science Without Numbers does a great start of proving this:
Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why.

"A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers." - Plato

ďWhen you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.Ē - Lord Kelvin

Pick one.

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #195 on: December 28, 2017, 03:06:35 PM »
Have you noticed whenever you ask John a question.....he disappears.
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

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #196 on: December 28, 2017, 04:03:49 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 ! 😆
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 !

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #197 on: December 28, 2017, 04:12:41 PM »
For those naysayers, Science Without Numbers does a great start of proving this:
Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why.

In any course of study for those studying to be in some field involving becoming a scientist , engineer or technician the knowledge of mathematics and how to apply this knowledge is a basic requirement.
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 !

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #198 on: December 28, 2017, 04:13:46 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  >:(
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #199 on: December 28, 2017, 05:19:01 PM »
Have you noticed whenever you ask John a question.....he disappears.
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  >:(

We are not talking about "answering questions on an internet forum to people who really don't care about the answers" but specifically about John Davis, who posts this, then runs away.
I have not, but the cited book has. Take of it what you will, but get off my back. Your level of explanation is not suitable for proof of a bottle of alcohol, let alone matters of this import. Science With Out Numbers, as its name might hint, gives a solid argument for mathematics being a tool that could be replaced by many other abstract constructs.
And look at the type of person you defend! He denigrates people like this:
Except I'm not coming here and talking crap. You are just being a shit human. Why you feel the need to do this is beyond me. I suppose it must make you feel good about yourself in some way.
Yes, I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug. I am not dishonest.

I have no doubt you are a shit person as you seem to spend your free time abusing people who have beliefs that differ from your own.
You guys are fucking assholes.
Real nice type, this John Davis that you defend!

Then big-notes himself like this:
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.

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #200 on: December 28, 2017, 06:38:26 PM »
Have you noticed whenever you ask John a question.....he disappears.
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  >:(

We are not talking about "answering questions on an internet forum to people who really don't care about the answers" but specifically about John Davis, who posts this, then runs away.
I have not, but the cited book has. Take of it what you will, but get off my back. Your level of explanation is not suitable for proof of a bottle of alcohol, let alone matters of this import. Science With Out Numbers, as its name might hint, gives a solid argument for mathematics being a tool that could be replaced by many other abstract constructs.
And look at the type of person you defend! He denigrates people like this:
Except I'm not coming here and talking crap. You are just being a shit human. Why you feel the need to do this is beyond me. I suppose it must make you feel good about yourself in some way.
Yes, I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug. I am not dishonest.

I have no doubt you are a shit person as you seem to spend your free time abusing people who have beliefs that differ from your own.
You guys are fucking assholes.
Real nice type, this John Davis that you defend!

Then big-notes himself like this:
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.

From what I understand based on what I've seen here and in other threads, I think it's OK for John to talk like that because he's part of a minority (FEers) but if you talk like that it's bad, and worthy of a rebuke. This is because you belong to a majority group. (GEers)
ďHeaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..Ē - Wise

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 927
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #201 on: December 28, 2017, 06:49:16 PM »
Iím thinking that maybe infinite plane could work. Itís the only way that the Sun could get to the horizon. Using trigonometry, we know that the apparent angle of the Sun in the sky is the inverse tangent of the altitude of the Sun divided by the distance from the observer to the point directly below it. With any Earthly distances, the Sun never reaches the horizon. But if the Sun could be infinitely far away...
That would be some trick since the Sun is always visible somewhere on Earth. How can it be infinitely far away from Ohio and directly overhead in India at the same time?

Oh, sorry. Under official FE rules, you donít have to have a thoroughly consistent model. You only have to explain one aspect of the universe at a time. If someone challenges you to align two or three facts at the same time, then you can change the subject. For example, did you know that Pizzagate was actually a cover up operation for NASA lies?

Well, crap
Nullius in Verba

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #202 on: December 28, 2017, 07:52:58 PM »
We are not talking about "answering questions on an internet forum to people who really don't care about the answers" but specifically about John Davis, who posts this, then runs away.
'runs away' = 'has other things to do than make posts in a forum when even if you just want to limit his duties to that forum he is still the guy keeping it running'

Quote
And look at the type of person you defend! He denigrates people like this:
Sure, in response to what exactly? When there are dozens of users who'll happily throw insults and mockery, and you decide to only call out the person that gets angry at it, you're the asshole.

From what I understand based on what I've seen here and in other threads, I think it's OK for John to talk like that because he's part of a minority (FEers) but if you talk like that it's bad, and worthy of a rebuke. This is because you belong to a majority group. (GEers)
Ok vs understandable. I think it makes more sense to be sympathetic to the people that have dozens of people throwing insults at them and wasting their time vs the people that deal with one, maybe two users at a time, and those users generally having their attention split up. Is that so weird?
A FEer can make a thread, and overnight they can end up with responses from more users than there are active FEers on this site, and pretty much all of them will be mocking or derailing rather than trying to engage. Not hard to realise which side is in a hell of a better position. Sure, I disagree with a fair few of those posts, but there are so many REers on this site who're going to post call-outs and object with variously spiralling downward degrees of rationality, what exactly would it achieve to lend my voice to the choir of mockery?
REers meanwhile seem religiously opposed to accepting any kind of criticism. It's genuinely disturbing.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #203 on: December 28, 2017, 08:08:05 PM »
Ok vs understandable. I think it makes more sense to be sympathetic to the people that have dozens of people throwing insults at them and wasting their time vs the people that deal with one, maybe two users at a time, and those users generally having their attention split up. Is that so weird?
A FEer can make a thread, and overnight they can end up with responses from more users than there are active FEers on this site, and pretty much all of them will be mocking or derailing rather than trying to engage. Not hard to realise which side is in a hell of a better position. Sure, I disagree with a fair few of those posts, but there are so many REers on this site who're going to post call-outs and object with variously spiralling downward degrees of rationality, what exactly would it achieve to lend my voice to the choir of mockery?
REers meanwhile seem religiously opposed to accepting any kind of criticism. It's genuinely disturbing.

OK. Well I'm a Flat Earth Almost Believer now, so I hope you jump in and stick up for me when some jerk starts giving me a hard time.
ďHeaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..Ē - Wise

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #204 on: December 28, 2017, 09:40:06 PM »
Infinite Taco Theory:
If I had infinite time and and infinite supply of tacos, I could them forever.

Unfortunately, there is no known source or plausible source of infinite tacos, not is there any evidence to support the idea that I can live forever. So while someone can show that known laws of gravity allow for an infinite plane, there is no evidence to support it.

The lack of FE math is only part of the problem. Itís also FE willingness to ignore math that shows FE to be absolutely absurd. FE supporters prefer what they imagine to what is known or observable.
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #205 on: December 29, 2017, 12:51:33 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.

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #206 on: December 29, 2017, 01:24:52 AM »
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  >:(

Hereís a question for you. Why are you always angry?
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 #207 on: December 29, 2017, 01:36:34 AM »
We are not talking about "answering questions on an internet forum to people who really don't care about the answers" but specifically about John Davis, who posts this, then runs away.
'runs away' = 'has other things to do than make posts in a forum when even if you just want to limit his duties to that forum he is still the guy keeping it running'

Quote
And look at the type of person you defend! He denigrates people like this:
Sure, in response to what exactly? When there are dozens of users who'll happily throw insults and mockery, and you decide to only call out the person that gets angry at it, you're the asshole.

From what I understand based on what I've seen here and in other threads, I think it's OK for John to talk like that because he's part of a minority (FEers) but if you talk like that it's bad, and worthy of a rebuke. This is because you belong to a majority group. (GEers)
Ok vs understandable. I think it makes more sense to be sympathetic to the people that have dozens of people throwing insults at them and wasting their time vs the people that deal with one, maybe two users at a time, and those users generally having their attention split up. Is that so weird?
A FEer can make a thread, and overnight they can end up with responses from more users than there are active FEers on this site, and pretty much all of them will be mocking or derailing rather than trying to engage. Not hard to realise which side is in a hell of a better position. Sure, I disagree with a fair few of those posts, but there are so many REers on this site who're going to post call-outs and object with variously spiralling downward degrees of rationality, what exactly would it achieve to lend my voice to the choir of mockery?
REers meanwhile seem religiously opposed to accepting any kind of criticism. It's genuinely disturbing.

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. For example he said Beethoven, you know, da, da, da, dum, was a flat earth believer! Where did he get this fact from?...he just made it up.
Iím not sure about being the greatest Zetetic scientist of our time, self proclaimed, but he is sure of our the greatest fake news producers of our time.
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
  • 12330
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #208 on: December 29, 2017, 04:32:34 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.

Hereís 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.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #209 on: December 29, 2017, 04:41:12 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.