If the other planets are observably round (I mean come on) why isn't Earth?

You are making claims about FE models.

I am making claims about FE in general, without going into details of specific models.

Now, how about you try addressing what I said rather than making up yet another strawman.
Or if we are agreeing like you claim, why not just agree and say that the argument applies in general against a FE, and observations supporting it also ruling out specific FE models doesn't make this a bad argument.

You just admitted that you're relying on observations where the Earth is similar to other planets

Stop lying. The observations indicate that, they don't rely upon it.
As such, my argument applies regardless of if the models agree.

Again, what you are saying is akin to suggesting you can't make an argument indicating Earth is round to argue against a FE, because a FE doesn't indicate that. It is nonsense.

Again, size alone refutes this whole argument

No it doesn't.
Size is another way to refute those models.
Again, what you are doing is akin to suggesting FE indicating Earth is flat refutes this argument.
It is nonsense.

If this is wrong then lose the rest of your rambles and tell me how this argument can apply successfully to those models.

It is quite simple, the observations indicate the model is wrong. The model being wrong in multiple aspects doesn't magically mean you can't use one of those aspects as an argument.

We had an agreement on the fact that the argument only works if you base it on observations that preclude certain options.

No we didn't.
We agreed that the observations can lead to a different argument to show those specific models are wrong.
Again, observations showing Earth isn't flat is the point.
Again, you are effectively suggesting you can't use curvature to prove Earth isn't flat, as curvature precludes a flat Earth. It is pure nonsense.

Jane,

All square are rectangles.
Not all rectangles are sq.

...Well aware of that. Which is why you don't act as though an argument based on four equal sides applies to all rectangles.

Look for a jane discussion on poison bread and save yourself the agrevation

The poison bread was Davis' analogy. Not hard to find the thread:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74914.msg2043604#msg2043604

Highlights being: "Either the Earth is round, or is subject to different forces than the things we see in the sky. That is literally the conclusion of all of this."
And jackblack being his usual obstinate self of having a potentially good argument but refusing to use it because he'd never admit he's wrong about this mess.

Jackblack, I'm done. You just completely ignored what I said and the entire contents of this thread so far and I really don't have the energy or the inclination to put up with your shtick any more, especially now I've just reminded myself of the fact that you never, ever, ever seem to grow up.

Short version: you can't talk about FET in general if you aren't talking about the models that, you know, make up FET. And your argument fails if you allow for the fact that the planets are nothing like the Earth without those observations you use to dismiss FE models before this argument is ever applied. And that you could just replace this with "What formed the Earth? What formed the planets?" and I'd have no issue, but you're too arrogant to ever let this mess die so I don't know why I bother. You could be making a good argument, you just don't want to, and at that point you're a waste of time.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 23, 2018, 04:31:04 AM

Jane,

All square are rectangles.
Not all rectangles are sq.

...Well aware of that. Which is why you don't act as though an argument based on four equal sides applies to all rectangles.

Quote

Look for a jane discussion on poison bread and save yourself the agrevation

The poison bread was Davis' analogy.

But an argument can be made on how mass in space forms large bodies and generally results in spheriod shapes.

But an argument can be made on how mass in space forms large bodies and generally results in spheriod shapes.

Which is not this argument. And that argument only has a semblance of logic to it if you explain why, go through justifications of gravity, how we know it applies in all cases etc, which is non-trivial.

Honestly all this just proves my point: if you have to defend "If other planets are round..." with arguments that essentially replace it, that's a sure sign this site would be a better place if it didn't keep making the rounds.

And jackblack being his usual obstinate self of having a potentially good argument but refusing to use it because he'd never admit he's wrong about this mess.
You just completely ignored

There you go projecting again.
If I am wrong, and that can be shown with a rational argument, I will admit it.
If it is just be repeatedly asserting by repeatedly ignoring and misrepresenting my position, I wont.

But you said we agree. Typically you don't say someone is wrong if you agree with them, unless they also say that they are wrong?

Short version:

Actual short version:
You can make an argument against FE in general without focussing on specific models.
This includes if your observations or or other arguments based upon these observations rule out specific models

Suggesting that the observations already rule out specific models does not invalidate the argument or indicate that the argument doesn't apply to these models. That would be pure nonsense suggesting that you can't use things which show a model to be wrong, to show the model is wrong.

I'm not the waste of time here.
You could accept that it is a perfectly valid argument, but also indicate that there are other arguments which you personally think are better.
But no, you are too bent up on automatically assuming that people assume FE false to argue it is false and refuse to admit your errors.

Grow up and stop projecting your own inadequacies onto others.

You can make an argument against FE in general without focussing on specific models.
This includes if your observations or or other arguments based upon these observations rule out specific models

No one is saying focus, but you still need to acknowledge them. I... I can't believe I need to explain this.

What you are doing, thanks to the way you are insisting on framing it, is the equivalent of that good old chestnut "Just look out your window!" It's an argument made independently of RE model, where something appearing one way means it has to be that way with no other explanation needed. It doesn't matter that the scale of a RE easily explains why the Earth can look flat out a window, it doesn't matter how many other arguments you have, look at the window, that'll fix it!
The only way to respond to this argument is to acknowledge how it would look from the RE perspective, and point out that it makes perfect sense there. But no, according to you that's not necessary because the argument was made independently of RE model. It's an argument against RE general, who cares what the RE model of the universe actually says?

And don't start with the "But this is different!" It's not. The only difference is that you agree with one and disagree with the other, but your opinion has no relevance to the merits of an argument. A good argument can bear equal treatment. Just like the above model fails when you consider how things would look from the RE perspective, yours fails when you consider how things must look from the FE. The world looks as round as it does flat, the planets look as unlike the Earth as they do like, until you start backing it up with a separate argument that stands alone.

Sure, you can insist oh, right, well these observations mean we have to tweak this model to something different, then the argument works... But once you do that you aren't arguing against anything anyone actually holds to, you're arguing against something you made up on the fly. So what is the point? Anyone can do that. It's like refuting gravity by looking out your window, concluding that the Earth's flat, tweaking RET to contain that, oh look it all falls apart.

But, like I said, the truly damning part of all this is the fact you have a good argument. Acknowledge that you have arguments against models with small planets, as you've insisted you have. Acknowledge that you can simply ask after the creation of the FE solar system. You lose nothing. Those cases, whatever responses they have, at least contain a clear logical inference to what you want. You can easily replace this whole thread, but you refuse to do so because of no reason.

Instead of your tired old angry "I didn't say that! You're lying! You're wrong!" post mutilations, just move on. Why are you so adamantly refusing to make those arguments?

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 23, 2018, 07:05:06 AM

But an argument can be made on how mass in space forms large bodies and generally results in spheriod shapes.

Which is not this argument. And that argument only has a semblance of logic to it if you explain why, go through justifications of gravity, how we know it applies in all cases etc, which is non-trivial.

Honestly all this just proves my point: if you have to defend "If other planets are round..." with arguments that essentially replace it, that's a sure sign this site would be a better place if it didn't keep making the rounds.

What???
One anser leads to the next...
How does a round body form.
Ddifferent matters still form round bodies.
Nothing noted diferent for earth so by logic it is round.
We can be 99.9999% sure based on these alone (not includong all round measurements that magically arent valid in this discussion), that it is round.
Ok nevermind.
Dont answer.
Your response is senseless.
Youve made no point.

Nothing noted diferent for earth so by logic it is round.

Yeah. As I've repeated way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way too many times, this needs justification. It's a demonstrable fact that matter doesn't automatically become a ball, look in a mirror. That only happens in specific situations.

And, like I keep saying, if you can prove those situations apply to the Earth then you have made an entirely different, standalone argument.

Youve made no point.

Counterproposal: you're either not listening, not thinking, or too bloody-minded to agree if someone says the sky is blue.

No one is saying focus, but you still need to acknowledge them.

And acknowledging them doesn't mean discarding things which show them to be wrong.

What you are doing, thanks to the way you are insisting on framing it, is the equivalent of that good old chestnut "Just look out your window!"

Not in the slightest. The 2 are fundamentally different.
That argument assumes Earth is a tiny ball such that you would see significant curvature just by looking out your window.
That is based upon assuming a particular RE model which no one is arguing for and proving that model wrong. It is not arguing against a RE in general.

If you would like to try framing it as an argument against a RE in general, noting a FE is effectively a section of a RE with an infinite radius, go ahead.

The argument you are opposing is instead based upon making observations, and leading to conclusions based upon those observations which show that FE in general is wrong, where you can stop early if you are just wanting to focus on specific FE models.

The only way to respond to this argument is to acknowledge how it would look from the RE perspective, and point out that it makes perfect sense there.

And that is where the fundamental difference lies.
My argument is not a simple assertion that Earth is like the other planets. It is based upon observations which show that to be the case.
Some FE models can allow that to make sense, such as the ancient FE models and ones with bendy light which can still have large planets far from Earth. But for the common FE model it still doesn't make any sense because those observations aren't consistent with that model. Note: it isn't the logical reasoning where assumptions are made which aren't consistent, it is the observations themselves not being consistent.

That is the massive difference which you are ignoring.
For that argument you need to make assumptions about Earth, which when discarded renders the argument void. For my argument, no assumptions are made and there are just multiple ways to refute it.

Rather than your simplified view of 3 steps, it contains several more. Something more like:
A->B->C->D->E.
We agree that C shows that specific FE models are wrong.
I'm saying this shows Earth isn't flat.
You are saying this is a garbage argument against FE either because C shows FE models to be wrong and thus the rest isn't needed or because it magically somehow means it only applies to models which aren't refuted by C.

Again, what it is actually similar to is this:
Observations indicate that there is curvature. How are these observations explained on a FE?
You are arguing we can't use this as an argument, because it only argues against FE models which have curvature.

And don't start with the "But this is different!" It's not.

Sorry, I'm not just going to bow down and submit to your lies.
They are different. I don't care if you don't like that.

yours fails when you consider how things must look from the FE.

No it doesn't.
It just gets to end a little earlier.

But once you do that you aren't arguing against anything anyone actually holds to

Again, you are ignoring what I have said.
These tweaks have already been made to some extent with bendy light to try to explain things like why Polaris isn't visible south of the equator.
This bending of light means that the 45 degree angle used to determine the distance to Polaris isn't actually 45 degrees and instead would be much greater, meaning Polaris is much further than the 5000 km often quoted.
This would likewise apply to the moon and sun and other planets, meaning they are further than the common idea of 5000 km.
So I ask again: How far away are the planets in these models?

And again, people claim Earth is flat, my argument applies to that. If it refutes specific models earlier than the conclusion, that doesn't mean I'm not arguing against them.

Acknowledge that you have arguments against models with small planets, as you've insisted you have. Acknowledge that you can simply ask after the creation of the FE solar system.

Pretty sure I already have. Just to make it clear:
I acknowledge that there are other arguments which can be used, either against FE in general or against specific FE models, including the start of this argument.

You can easily replace this whole thread, but you refuse to do so because of no reason.

Yes, there are lots of arguments against a FE, that doesn't magically mean that an argument is bad.
An argument asking how the planets are formed can be replaced with observations indicating they are far away. Both can be replaced with arguments based upon observations of curvature.
That doesn't make those arguments bad.
Why pretend that there is only one good argument against FE and attack all those you think are inferior?

Again, the existence of other arguments, even better arguments, doesn't magically make an argument bad.
Arguments should be judged upon their own merits, not the merits of other arguments.

Instead of your tired old angry

It isn't angry, it is just objecting to your blatant misrepresentations of my post.
How about instead of arrogant and angry "NO YOUR WRONG", you just move on?
Why are you so adamant on claiming this argument is bad, when you need to misrepresent it so much to do so?

Also, I have made those arguments. FEers typically don't respond to them.
In fact, because of that it can actually be better to make less strong arguments, including incomplete ones to try to have FEers engage.

That argument assumes Earth is a tiny ball such that you would see significant curvature just by looking out your window.

And your argument assumes the other planets are of a comparable size to the Earth.

Oh wait, no, doesn't assume, bases it on an entirely separate argument.

That is based upon assuming a particular RE model which no one is arguing for and proving that model wrong. It is not arguing against a RE in general.

Sound familiar? Remove the entirely separate argument and there is no difference. You have an argument, why are you religiously opposed to using it?

Why are you so adamant on claiming this argument is bad, when you need to misrepresent it so much to do so?

You've just admitted you need to append a separate argument to this trainwreck. The 'start of this argument,' which, you know, stands alone like I've been saying. The 'start of this argument,' the only one that actually applies to FE models, tackles them with no attempt to compare the shapes of the planet and the Earth. That's not 'getting to it earlier,' that is an entirely separate argument that you're relying on to prop this one up. Why on earth are you acting like it's some kind of justification when it's a replacement?

In fact, because of that it can actually be better to make less strong arguments, including incomplete ones to try to have FEers engage.

And even that's wrong. FEers don't engage when you expect them to repeat themselves because pretty much all the cliches have been done to death, including this one. If you want them to engage (all two of them still around thanks to how unrelentingly unpleasant this site gets when nonsense gets arrogantly defended) put a bit of effort in and try something vaguely interesting or new rather than a demand to repeat themselves. You evidently know how FET responds to multiple cases, so skip the first step and go straight to asking after that, and better yet don't be hostile about it, be level and see what it takes to make it work and let the answers speak for themselves rather than this mess of a needlessly aggressive chain of an argument that needs to be replaced before it's any good.

And your argument assumes the other planets are of a comparable size to the Earth.
Oh wait, no, doesn't assume, bases it on an entirely separate argument.

Well at least you're admitting my argument doesn't assume that, and by extension that means my argument applies in general, not just to specific arguments.
What you are still wrong on is that it isn't AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE ARGUMENT!
It is merely the start of my argument.

The start can stand alone with another statement to refute some specific FE models, which means it isn't a general argument against a FE.

Stop claiming it is an entirely separate argument which refutes FE in general.

If you like, you can consider it more like this:

If A then B or C.
If B then X
If C then not X.
Not X.
Thus Y
Thus Z
Thus not A.

The first part can be used as an argument against B, but that makes it incomplete as an argument against A.
So again, it comes down to if I am trying to refute A, that is a FE in general, or B, specific FE models.

I think that if your argument is only against B, it isn't as good as one which is against A in general.

Sound familiar? Remove the entirely separate argument and there is no difference.

Again, not a separate argument. you are effectively saying remove the part of the argument that shows you to be wrong, so you can be right.
No thanks. I will keep that part of the argument. I like having good arguments, not crap ones.

Even if I did remove the start of the argument, it still isn't actually all that familiar.
One starts with a premise which can be determined from observations. The other starts with a premise that is based upon assuming a particular model.
Or to put it another way, one starts with a premise which can be justified by another argument. The other starts with a baseless assumption of a particular model.
So they are still fundamentally different.
One gets completely thrown out as a general case as it relies upon a particular model, the other just gets a bit appended to the start.

You've just admitted you need to append a separate argument to this trainwreck.

If you don't want a trainwreck stop trying to get rid of the engine. Let the train stay in tact.

And even that's wrong. FEers don't engage when you expect them to repeat themselves

I find they are much happier to engage then.
It is likely because they think they can refute that. If you give them a simple argument which they can provide a flawed response to they engage to try and show the errors of RE and that FE is fine. If you give them a hard argument which they have no honest, rational response to, they avoid it like the plauge.

thanks to how unrelentingly unpleasant this site gets when nonsense gets arrogantly defended

Then stop being so unpleasant. Also ask Sandy, Inky and scepti to stop being so unpleasant.

put a bit of effort in and try something vaguely interesting or new rather than a demand to repeat themselves.

We aren't demanding they repeat themselves.
We repeat the same arguments because they are yet to provide a sound rebuttal.
You are effectively asking us to give up on the arguments which have repeatedly shown them to be wrong and instead try something new. But that wasn't your initial objection.

But something already being done doesn't make it bad. If you had just said this has been brought up many times before and the FEers don't have any answer for it that would be an entirely separate issue and I wouldn't have objected.

Even the arguments you are suggesting to replace them aren't new.

Can you provide a new argument?

You evidently know how FET responds to multiple cases, so skip the first step and go straight to asking after that

In which case they typically don't respond, or respond with religious nonsense or off topic rambling or just copied pasted mountains of garbage.

I find that if you want to actually try a debate, it can be better to start off with a simple question, and build up from it, rather than starting with a rock solid argument they have no chance to refute. e.g. you start with a simple question which they think they have the answer for, in response they provide that answer, you then explain the problems with that answer.
But even when I try that here, FEers typically wont respond.

What you are still wrong on is that it isn't AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE ARGUMENT!
It is merely the start of my argument.

Stop repeating that when it's plainly not true. When you can shut up after giving your 'starter' and you've achieved pretty much all you could set out to do, it's a separate argument. It's the equivalent of saying "Well the ISS couldn't stay in orbit over a flat Earth, so FET is false!" and as 'starter' proving space travel exists. If you've done that, you've done your job. And at least in that case there's actual logical implication to the ultimate end result rather than this, which is still only a query rather than an argument.

Your argument, and emphasis on your argument because don't even try to deny that basically anyone else that uses this doesn't even consider your 'starter,' addresses all existent FE models in its justification.

And, yet again as you keep ignoring, even when you go through all that justification it can all be replaced with "What forces created the Earth and planets?" which nets you a more detailed answer, doesn't draw a false comparison, doesn't need to be propped up with a separate argument, and does everything this trainwreck is meant to do while plainly demonstrating it's an idle curiosity, not an argument, because this is all it comes down to. The forces that created the Earth and planets are different, that's it, there's your big answer like I pointed out before. If you want the details, ask after them, ask after the model, don't pretend this is any kind of argument.

So, to summarise: your 'starter' can be completely removed, and you get a question that nets you the same answer that actually is generally applicable because it doesn't rely on drawing false implications.

Don't defend this nonsense. You come off as insecure.

Stop repeating that when it's plainly not true.

In that case I will keep repeating it as it is plainly true.
Again I set out to have an argument which refutes FE in general, not specific models.
If you wish to object how about you answer the question you seem to be avoiding:
How far away and how large are the planets in the bendy light model?

Remember, the model made to address the shortcomings of having the planets and stars so close?

And, yet again as you keep ignoring, even when you go through all that justification it can all be replaced with "What forces created the Earth and planets?"

As you have said repeatedly, that is a different argument.
It can be answered with plain ignorance of "we don't know" and get you no where.
The only way that works as an argument against a FE, other than having them plead ignorance, is if you prop it up with forces which they reject (according to you no point following the argument once you have established gravity as most reject that, and ones which don't have a fundamentally different Earth), or with some logical connection between the planets and Earth.

demonstrating it's an idle curiosity, not an argument

Which means it would belong in the Q&A section, not the debate section.

As you keep ignoring:

• If it stands alone, it is not the same argument. If this argument is consistently made without that, it is not the same argument.
  
• All this argument does anyway is point out that the Earth and planets must have been created by different means.

As you keep ignoring:

• If it stands alone, it is not the same argument. If this argument is consistently made without that, it is not the same argument.
  
• All this argument does anyway is point out that the Earth and planets must have been created by different means.

"Must have been created by different means" means youve already chosen the results regardless of the evidence.

Quote from: Jane on November 24, 2018, 02:56:19 AM

As you keep ignoring:

• If it stands alone, it is not the same argument. If this argument is consistently made without that, it is not the same argument.
  
• All this argument does anyway is point out that the Earth and planets must have been created by different means.

"Must have been created by different means" means youve already chosen the results regardless of the evidence.

...What?
Uh, no. No it doesn't. Whether or not there's enough evidence to justify an FE model of creation is an entirely separate debate. Seriously, the fact you need separate standalone arguments to prop this mess up really should tell you everything.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 24, 2018, 11:48:53 AM

Quote from: Jane on November 24, 2018, 02:56:19 AM

As you keep ignoring:

• If it stands alone, it is not the same argument. If this argument is consistently made without that, it is not the same argument.
  
• All this argument does anyway is point out that the Earth and planets must have been created by different means.

"Must have been created by different means" means youve already chosen the results regardless of the evidence.

...What?
Uh, no. No it doesn't. Whether or not there's enough evidence to justify an FE model of creation is an entirely separate debate. Seriously, the fact you need separate standalone arguments to prop this mess up really should tell you everything.

Ya...re-read your last statement, then recall a previous discussion where you told me FE can only discussed one topic at a time and inconsistent or conflicting theories dont matter.

Thanks for coming out.

Quote from: Jane on November 24, 2018, 11:57:47 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 24, 2018, 11:48:53 AM

Quote from: Jane on November 24, 2018, 02:56:19 AM

As you keep ignoring:

• If it stands alone, it is not the same argument. If this argument is consistently made without that, it is not the same argument.
  
• All this argument does anyway is point out that the Earth and planets must have been created by different means.

"Must have been created by different means" means youve already chosen the results regardless of the evidence.

...What?
Uh, no. No it doesn't. Whether or not there's enough evidence to justify an FE model of creation is an entirely separate debate. Seriously, the fact you need separate standalone arguments to prop this mess up really should tell you everything.

Ya...re-read your last statement, then recall a previous discussion where you told me FE can only discussed one topic at a time and inconsistent or conflicting theories dont matter.

Thanks for coming out.

...What?
A) I'm pretty sure you'll find what I said was more to the tune "Don't dance between topics like mad just to avoid conceding a point." B) What's the problem? It's a direct answer to the OP, no topic change on my end, just yours when you try to weld a separate argument onto this which is, you know, exactly what I'm calling you out for doing...

As you keep ignoring:

Again, you are the one ignoring things, not me.

If it stands alone, it is not the same argument. If this argument is consistently made without that, it is not the same argument.

It doesn't stand alone. It stands as part of the argument. The fact that it can be separated and have an addition to make a different argument doesn't make it a different argument.

All this argument does anyway is point out that the Earth and planets must have been created by different means.

It requires a justification for that, or is simply special pleading.

A) I'm pretty sure you'll find what I said was more to the tune "Don't dance between topics like mad just to avoid conceding a point."

No, I'm pretty sure you will find it is much closer to:
"No, we are only discussing this one particular topic, don't change to other topics which show this model to be crap, instead make that a new thread were a different model can be presented."
Which can be responded to with "Don't dance between models like mad just to avoid conceding a point."

Again you ignore the question which shows the problem with your position:
HOW FAR AWAY ARE THE PLANETS IN THE BENDY LIGHT MODEL?
Can you answer this time?

Looks like jackb is in agreement with me.
2to1.
Whoopwhoop.
Go team RE

It doesn't stand alone. It stands as part of the argument. The fact that it can be separated and have an addition to make a different argument doesn't make it a different argument.

That is the definition of a different argument. If it stands alone and reaches the same conclusion it's its own argument. It's only 'part of the argument' because you had to jam it in to try and get even a semblance of logic in there.

It requires a justification for that, or is simply special pleading.

Which FET models have in spades, as I've already gone into. And even so, ditto for the replacement query; 'I don't know the precise details' answers both, but as far as this argument alone goes it still gets a response by pointing out the differing forces.

You're playing semantics. "What governs the formation of the FE Earth? How could one come to exist?" is as damning an argument as this, if it fails, and it is *gasp* actually an argument. Just because the negative gets phrased differently doesn't make it any better or worse.

No, I'm pretty sure you will find it is much closer to:
"No, we are only discussing this one particular topic, don't change to other topics which show this model to be crap, instead make that a new thread were a different model can be presented."
Which can be responded to with "Don't dance between models like mad just to avoid conceding a point."

Uh, what? No one's stopping you from asking 'How does __ model answer __?" If you only want answers with respect to one particular model, it's really not that hard unless you're just trying to score cheap points rather than make a logical case. Huh. Answered my own question.
If the only way you can defend an argument is by recourse to others, you've got a bad argument. Why is it I keep needing to repeat that to you? If you want to cross-reference arguments, great, have a ball, but don't pretend that's the same as either individual point when in the end it's just a distraction feeding your apparent pathological inability for admitting FET can answer even the simplest, worst RE arguments.

Again you ignore the question which shows the problem with your position:
HOW FAR AWAY ARE THE PLANETS IN THE BENDY LIGHT MODEL?
Can you answer this time?

I don't care. That enough of an answer? It doesn't show a problem with 'my position,' weren't you the one talking about how this holds with respect to general models? My position is that this argument whichever way you cut it relies on being replaced entirely by separate points. There is nothing here. You have to back every word up with a standalone argument to make any of your points work. The distance to the planets in the 'bendy light' model has nothing to do with any of that.

Looks like jackb is in agreement with me.

Not a good position to be in mate.

Looks like jackb is in agreement with me.
2to1.
Whoopwhoop.
Go team RE

I can't wait for JackBlack to acknowledge he agrees with you.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 24, 2018, 12:45:52 PM

Looks like jackb is in agreement with me.
2to1.
Whoopwhoop.
Go team RE

I can't wait for JackBlack to acknowledge he agrees with you.

I think that'd require understanding Kabool.

That is the definition of a different argument. If it stands alone and reaches the same conclusion it's its own argument.

Again, it doesn't just stand alone, nor does it reach the same conclusion.
Again, you take the start of the argument, and put a different conclusion on it to make a different argument with a different conclusion.

Which FET models have in spades

No they don't.
They have a bunch of excuses, all of which fall to pieces.

"What governs the formation of the FE Earth? How could one come to exist?" is as damning an argument as this

No it doesn't
It can be answered by pure ignorance.
That alone is not an argument against a FE.
It needs to be propped up with an argument which indicates Earth should form into/be a sphere, which is an entirely separate argument.

Uh, what? No one's stopping you from asking 'How does __ model answer __?" If you only want answers with respect to one particular model

Then you complain that people are only attacking one model rather than FE in general.
We don't want answers to one particular model. We want a consistent FE model; a single model which can explain all the observations.

If the only way you can defend an argument is by recourse to others, you've got a bad argument.

Again, it is about FE in its entirety, not just specific models. Specific models can easily be refuted with a single argument.
To refute it in general you either need a much larger argument or you need to combine multiple arguments together.
But you attack those arguments which don't rely upon others as bad arguments because you see them as still needing them.

You are effectively trying to set it up so no one can argue against a FE and be considered to be making good arguments in your mind.

Why is it I keep needing to repeat that to you?

Again, you don't need to keep repeating the same bullshit. What you should try doing is making a rational argument and actually responding to what has been said.

If you want to cross-reference arguments, great, have a ball, but don't pretend that's the same as either individual point when in the end it's just a distraction feeding your apparent pathological inability for admitting FET can answer even the simplest, worst RE arguments.

Again, there is no FE theory, there are numerous contradictory models. That is kind of the point.
FEers can typically come up with some BS model to try and answer one question, while just pushing around problems.

And of course, you just can't resist blatantly lying about me and insulting me can you?
I have pointed out in many threads that FE can answer actual bad arguments. But you can't have that, because it means all the lies you spout about me might be a bunch of lies.

I don't care. That enough of an answer? It doesn't show a problem with 'my position,' weren't you the one talking about how this holds with respect to general models? My position is that this argument whichever way you cut it relies on being replaced entirely by separate points.

Remember this?:

Quote from: JackBlack on November 21, 2018, 06:15:36 PM

This shows that these are quite some distance away from us, many times the size of Earth.

Great. You've refuted FET. Again, why are you making this argument?

If you want to claim NO FE MODEL HAS PLANETS FAR AWAY, and thus that merely showing are far away refutes FE, you need to care about how far away planets are in various FE models.
You need to establish that even the models with bendy light still have nearby planets.
If you don't care how far away they are, then your claim that merely establishing the planets are far away is enough to refute all existing FE models is pure garbage.

So not caring or not knowing completely destroys your position. It means that you no longer reach the same conclusion, that FE (at least all models people are proposing) is shown false by the start of the argument. It means that you need the rest of the argument to show a FE is false (or at least likely to be false).

So no, you NEED TO CARE, at least if you care about presenting an honest position!

Understand now?

So again, HOW FAR AWAY ARE THE PLANETS IN MODELS WITH BENDY LIGHT?

I can't wait for JackBlack to acknowledge he agrees with you.

I think it is pretty clear we are in agreement on that issue. Jane likes pretending FE has an answer for everything, while completely ignoring (or pretending it doesn't matter) the fact that these answers contradict one another and that no FE model has an answer for everything.

Again, it doesn't just stand alone, nor does it reach the same conclusion.
Again, you take the start of the argument, and put a different conclusion on it to make a different argument with a different conclusion.

...Which is patently false. The observation argument needs nothing beyond those observations to reach the conclusion that FET is false. How much of it works is a whole debate in itself, but you cannot seriously be denying that.

Quote from: Jane on November 24, 2018, 01:09:15 PM

"What governs the formation of the FE Earth? How could one come to exist?" is as damning an argument as this

No it doesn't
It can be answered by pure ignorance.
That alone is not an argument against a FE.
It needs to be propped up with an argument which indicates Earth should form into/be a sphere, which is an entirely separate argument.

And this isn't that argument, but sure, if you want to go that route prove the existence and relevance of gravity, there you go. Yet another replacement.

And equally, this argument can be answered by 'ignorance' too. It doesn't need any more than the 'different forces' response to give the principle; you need to ask after details for it to work, so why the hell aren't you just going straight to that point? The simple fact is that if they cannot provide even a hypothetical way for their model to have formed, that's damning. And hypothetical is all you need when responding to refutations.

Then you complain that people are only attacking one model rather than FE in general.

Only when they're trying to make claims about all FET. The only time I tend to mention there are other models is when the OP's implying it's the only one, or seems to think it's the only one, whether thanks to youtube or the FAQ. This isn't half as complicated as you're making it out to be.

To refute it in general you either need a much larger argument or you need to combine multiple arguments together.
But you attack those arguments which don't rely upon others as bad arguments because you see them as still needing them.

Because they're not a single argument. Why is this such a big deal to you? If you really want to list everything that comes under the umbrella of FET, there's such a vast array that there is no way in hell anything is going to apply to all of them. One key does not fit every door.

Like I've pointed out to you elsewhere, typically science doesn't give a damn about refutation. If you want a reason to reject FET in general, it's the question "Why is there more evidence for that than RET?" If there's no good answer, there's no reason to accept it.
If you want to refute FET in general then you're on a fool's errand because scientific refutation is a tricky business for a single model, let alone a whole army that barely have anything in common beyond a few key points, all of which can manifest differently.

You are defending this rubbish as though you need to. You don't. Just take every little thing that props this up and use them directly, taking the time to actually justify them, rather than trying to shove it all into some bloated Frankenstein's monster of an argument.

If you want to claim NO FE MODEL HAS PLANETS FAR AWAY, and thus that merely showing are far away refutes FE, you need to care about how far away planets are in various FE models.
You need to establish that even the models with bendy light still have nearby planets.

...Which I don't need to do by giving an exact distance, just pointing out that FET, even bendy light, features the Sun moving in a circle rather than being a pinprick of light wobbling slightly in the distance, and whatever else is the case that gives us a vague sense of scale thanks to transits. You know, like I pointed out when I responded to that last time, reply 72, feel like not being wilfully ignorant any time soon? This is bloody trivial.

And again, still hardly key given that ignores the more important half of my point, namely that this doesn't do what you want it to do anyway until you append "What causes the creation of the Earth?"

I think it is pretty clear we are in agreement on that issue. Jane likes pretending FE has an answer for everything, while completely ignoring (or pretending it doesn't matter) the fact that these answers contradict one another and that no FE model has an answer for everything.

Learn the difference between an answer and a solution.
There are arguments like this that are an utter disaster that don't deserve the breath you waste on them, goes right alongside "Why hasn't the UA Earth reached the speed of light yet?!"
Then there are others which are a little more complicated, and the FE answers shouldn't just be ignored in order to make a point. Chances are by time alone, even ignoring everything else, someone's going to have come up with an FE answer to every argument; doesn't mean it's correct, just that you can't claim victory by angry repitition.

Ah   2vs2 then if winkle has joined in.
Lets call it a tie.

But the fundamental issue here is that yes, jane provided an answer using the FET, regardless of the answer being correct, verifiable, observed, reproducable, measurable, not conflicting with other natural laws etc etc etc...

So
As a ven diagram, jackB is not satisfied that the FE "answer" is an actual answer.
Jane, by definition, responded, and this counts as an "aswner"

But the fundamental issue here is that yes, jane provided an answer using the FET, regardless of the answer being correct, verifiable, observed, reproducable, measurable, not conflicting with other natural laws etc etc etc...

Do you even know what the conversation's about, let alone what I said?!

Jackblack is defending an intended refutation of FET, that can be responded to on the grounds of logic alone by pointing out it doesn't do what it sets out to do without appending a separate argument that the OP plainly never intended.
And even with that argument, this fails because that argument achieves basically everything the OP set out to do by itself.
And after all that, this argument's grand conclusion needs to be backed up with yet another argument for it to achieve its goal. Which has responses too, but details.

Nothing there even needs to be verifiable, observable, reproducible, measurable, or anything with natural laws because it's on the grounds of logic alone. This argument fails that absolutely. Only one part even tangentially mentions FET, and that's just to point out what those models contain, not the truth of it; whether those are correct or not is entirely immaterial because either way this argument fails to address it until it's replaced by another.

If you aren't going to even read a thread, stop your cheerleading. You're embarrassing yourself and for that matter RET as a concept. How pathetic do you think science is?!

...Which is patently false. The observation argument needs nothing beyond those observations to reach the conclusion that FET is false.

Okay, let's make this nice and simple and focus on one point at a time as you don't seem capable of handling multiple points at once.
The key part of this argument so far is as follows:
Observations of the planets show no significant change in apparent size regardless of where they are viewed on Earth, and over a 24 hour period.
This lack of change in apparent size indicates the planets are very far away.

Now according to you, this shows FE is false.
How do you come to this conclusion when it isn't clear how far away the planets are with bendy light FE nonsense (and that already limits the possible FE models)?
Again, the only way to rationally answer this is by saying how far away the planets are with bendly light FE, but you said you don't care about that.

Okay, let's make this nice and simple and focus on one point at a time as you don't seem capable of handling multiple points at once.

Or you're just ignoring how I've already answered your question, and not only that referenced the last time I answered that question and you ignored it.

Jesus christ this was an absolute waste of time wasn't it?

Jane likes pretending FE has an answer for everything, while completely ignoring the fact that these answers contradict one another and that no FE model has an answer for everything.

One faulty experiment doesn't mean they all are.

JackBlack is the king of bloviation.