Vagueness in FE

If someone like scepti had a reasonable case for his belief he would produce a document, not random words on a forum.

Quote from: Jane on February 11, 2019, 02:22:30 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 11, 2019, 01:59:19 PM

Bad bad arguments.

We are taking here about denpressure and how it contradicts everything that science has to say about the behaviour of gasses under any circumstance you wish to mention.

Denpressure it totally unscientific.....full stop. Nothing he claims has been derived in a scientific manner, how could he as its 100% madeup pseudoscience. To try and claim otherwise is a mockery of science, and just makes you look silly trying to justify it.

I'm not claiming otherwise. Just. Jesus Christ do you live in your own little world or something?! You are claiming I am saying the exact opposite of what I am saying.
Read.

End of discussion.

So what have you been saying?  I’m mystified!

1. That not every argument with a correct conclusion is a good argument.
2. That statements like "The world is round because I have a round cushion!" can be criticised while still accepting that the world is round.
3. That if you want to make claims about what something predicts, then you have to actually know what that something predicts.
4. That a lack of evidence is sufficient reason to reject something without going a step further.

You're only mystified because you are a bloody moron who took this long to acknowledge something I have been repeating a ridiculous number of times.
So which of these statements do you object to? Nice and easy, numbered so you've got no room for vagueness.

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 12, 2019, 01:05:10 AM

Quote from: Jane on February 11, 2019, 02:22:30 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 11, 2019, 01:59:19 PM

Bad bad arguments.

We are taking here about denpressure and how it contradicts everything that science has to say about the behaviour of gasses under any circumstance you wish to mention.

Denpressure it totally unscientific.....full stop. Nothing he claims has been derived in a scientific manner, how could he as its 100% madeup pseudoscience. To try and claim otherwise is a mockery of science, and just makes you look silly trying to justify it.

I'm not claiming otherwise. Just. Jesus Christ do you live in your own little world or something?! You are claiming I am saying the exact opposite of what I am saying.
Read.

End of discussion.

So what have you been saying?  I’m mystified!

1. That not every argument with a correct conclusion is a good argument.
2. That statements like "The world is round because I have a round cushion!" can be criticised while still accepting that the world is round.
3. That if you want to make claims about what something predicts, then you have to actually know what that something predicts.
4. That a lack of evidence is sufficient reason to reject something without going a step further.

You're only mystified because you are a bloody moron who took this long to acknowledge something I have been repeating a ridiculous number of times.
So which of these statements do you object to? Nice and easy, numbered so you've got no room for vagueness.

2.   Who said that?

4.  Are you for or against this stayement?   Becaus scepti has no evidence so therefore cna get trown out.

2.   Who said that?

4.  Are you for or against this stayement?   Becaus scepti has no evidence so therefore cna get trown out.

2. It's an example of a principle, not something people say. Bad reasoning for RET can be criticised without doubting RET.

4. Jesus christ this is pathetic. How many times do I need to repeat hat I do not accept any FE model and I am not trying to get anyone to accept any FE model before it sinks in?!

Hi Jane,

I've been here for ten years, and I still don't understand why you are asking me to believe in denpressure. How can you believe something like that? Everyone knows that it will never work if all my a priori assumptions are correct.

The popularity of den pressure arguments is about as silly as the popularity of that quaint belief that the earth is a globe.

The popularity of den pressure arguments is about as silly as the popularity of that quaint belief that the earth is a globe.

Soo... denp is very very popular?

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 12, 2019, 09:50:26 AM

2.   Who said that?

4.  Are you for or against this stayement?   Becaus scepti has no evidence so therefore cna get trown out.

2. It's an example of a principle, not something people say. Bad reasoning for RET can be criticised without doubting RET.

4. Jesus christ this is pathetic. How many times do I need to repeat hat I do not accept any FE model and I am not trying to get anyone to accept any FE model before it sinks in?!

2.   So if someone were to say earths flat because it looks flat...
FE should stop using that one right?

4.  Then why do you keep bringing it up?
The only reason why i found out about scepti was becasue all you people keep ref him.

2.   So if someone were to say earths flat because it looks flat...
FE should stop using that one right?

4.  Then why do you keep bringing it up?
The only reason why i found out about scepti was becasue all you people keep ref him.

2. Yep. There's just no need for me to repeat what a dozen other people have said every time that gets brought up.
4. When the subject is about FE models, I mention FE models. What exactly is your problem? I'm not asking you to believe them, I just figure RET is strong enough that it can bear us actually be honest and open about what FEers believe. if all they see is evasion and straw man, conveniently omitting models that we all know exist, what impression do you think that gives?

The popularity of den pressure arguments is about as silly as the popularity of that quaint belief that the earth is a globe.

No other shape has been shown to be correct with measurements and observations.

Quote from: John Davis on February 12, 2019, 11:47:30 AM

The popularity of den pressure arguments is about as silly as the popularity of that quaint belief that the earth is a globe.

No other shape has been shown to be correct with measurements and observations.

Distances would be identical on some non-euclidean flat earths.

Quote from: John Davis on February 12, 2019, 11:47:30 AM

The popularity of den pressure arguments is about as silly as the popularity of that quaint belief that the earth is a globe.

Soo... denp is very very popular?

No. Where did you get that idea?

Quote from: inquisitive on February 12, 2019, 12:54:35 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 12, 2019, 11:47:30 AM

The popularity of den pressure arguments is about as silly as the popularity of that quaint belief that the earth is a globe.

No other shape has been shown to be correct with measurements and observations.

Distances would be identical on some non-euclidean flat earths.

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 12, 2019, 12:32:05 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 12, 2019, 11:47:30 AM

The popularity of den pressure arguments is about as silly as the popularity of that quaint belief that the earth is a globe.

Soo... denp is very very popular?

No. Where did you get that idea?

Some flat earths, which ones please?

Quote from: John Davis on February 12, 2019, 12:57:28 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 12, 2019, 12:54:35 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 12, 2019, 11:47:30 AM

The popularity of den pressure arguments is about as silly as the popularity of that quaint belief that the earth is a globe.

No other shape has been shown to be correct with measurements and observations.

Distances would be identical on some non-euclidean flat earths.

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 12, 2019, 12:32:05 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 12, 2019, 11:47:30 AM

The popularity of den pressure arguments is about as silly as the popularity of that quaint belief that the earth is a globe.

Soo... denp is very very popular?

No. Where did you get that idea?

Some flat earths, which ones please?

In particular the one I have posited before. There would be no difference in measured differences. You can likely reference Janes compendium thread on this for more details. Additionally, one could show fairly easily that there are infinitely many such earths.

In short, there is no reason distances could not match up on a non-euclidean flat closed surface. Additionally, gravity would act in a similar manner as a round earth in such a model.

Quote from: inquisitive on February 12, 2019, 01:04:04 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 12, 2019, 12:57:28 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 12, 2019, 12:54:35 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 12, 2019, 11:47:30 AM

The popularity of den pressure arguments is about as silly as the popularity of that quaint belief that the earth is a globe.

No other shape has been shown to be correct with measurements and observations.

Distances would be identical on some non-euclidean flat earths.

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 12, 2019, 12:32:05 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 12, 2019, 11:47:30 AM

The popularity of den pressure arguments is about as silly as the popularity of that quaint belief that the earth is a globe.

Soo... denp is very very popular?

No. Where did you get that idea?

Some flat earths, which ones please?

In particular the one I have posited before. There would be no difference in measured differences. You can likely reference Janes compendium thread on this for more details. Additionally, one could show fairly easily that there are infinitely many such earths.

In short, there is no reason distances could not match up on a non-euclidean flat closed surface. Additionally, gravity would act in a similar manner as a round earth in such a model.

Link please.  And satellite communication would work as it does now?

Quote from: John Davis on February 12, 2019, 01:13:08 PM

In particular the one I have posited before. There would be no difference in measured differences. You can likely reference Janes compendium thread on this for more details. Additionally, one could show fairly easily that there are infinitely many such earths.

In short, there is no reason distances could not match up on a non-euclidean flat closed surface. Additionally, gravity would act in a similar manner as a round earth in such a model.

Link please.  And satellite communication would work as it does now?

This might be worth noting.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Its not a lie. Satellites and ISS are completely consistent with my work. Of course, much of round earth theory wants us to believe instead that a magical force defies most of Newtons Laws - we instead realize our naive view of space.

The whole vagness flat earth thinking thing is quite nicely exemplified by Bob Knoodel!
When he conducted his experiment to prove his assertion that the earth is stationary. Of course reality smacked him well and truly in the face, with the gyroscope he used working according to reality and real world physics. This is what flattards stick to fiction and avoid conducting real world experiments, as the reality of the real world will always prove them wrong.

Stick to fiction and be vague should be the flat earth moto.