Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Pete Svarrior

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 244  Next >
1
Its the exact same argument I started with. Look up farther in the thread
I already explained how the two arguments are different. I'm sorry, but "nuh uh" is not a helpful answer here.

Why is it my job to prove my position?
Because it's your position. I'll defend mine, you'll defend yours. I will not be defending the opposite of yours, or vice-versa. That's just not how anything works.

Do you not know what Wikipedia is?

Teaching about the uncertainties of science is a long way from teaching they suggest gravity doesn't exist.
Once again - not something I have ever said or suggested. Do you think these constant straw man attacks will get you anywhere?

2
Then why did you suggest that it was as justification why it isn't necessary to disprove?
I didn't. There was only one thing I called unfalsifiable in this thread, and it was not RET.

It's exactly how science works.  As long as there is the possibility that x is true, you cannot logically assume that it is not.
That argument is completely distinct from your previous one. I do not propose that RET is to be assumed false - I propose that there is no requirement of proving it false before entertaining alternatives.

Trying to shift the goal posts like this makes you look worse, not better. Please approach this discussion with some intellectual honesty.

I reached out to you with a simple question.  Can FE disprove RE gravity? I asked you the question, which, by definition puts the burden of proof on you. It really should be a simple yes or no answer.
Your understanding of burden of proof, and of context in human communication, is absolutely abysmal. In asking your question, you attempted to reverse the BoP of the entire debate, one which has been going for much longer than your attempted contribution. It is, first and foremost, your job to prove your position. Demanding that someone else proves the opposite of your position and declaring that no alternatives can be considered until then is asinine.

What I got instead, not surprisingly, is the knee jerk response "Has RE proven gravity"?
I said nothing to that effect. If you have a problem with something someone else has said, might I recommend taking it up with them?

I thought RE was unfalsifiable?
I'm still not sure where you got that from, but once again for those in the back: no one here said anything like that.

And I did look at the Wiki and all I saw were alternative theories justified simply because they were not inconsistent with RE gravity.  That is not the same thing as disproving it.  Perhaps you could point me in the right directions, but I'm guessing if anything in the Wiki disproves RE gravity...you would have directed me there in the first place instead of trying to deflect. Like I said, simple yes or no answer and if there is something in the Wiki, or even some confirmed, peer reviewed experiments, observations, discoveries...anything that disproved RE gravity, you would have simply answered "yes...and here it is".  But that is not the answer I got. Did they teach you in your high school that gravity has been disproven?  I think that would have been pretty big news.
Holy shit, you can't even read a Wikipedia page without hand-holding? I'll give you a hint: examples of some anomalies and discrepancies within your favourite gravitational model are listed under the Anomalies and Discrepancies subheading of the Gravity page.

And yes, the uncertainties of science are something that was taught in high school back in my day. Perhaps they dropped it around the same time as reading comprehension?

3
RE gravity is not unfalsifiable.
Irrelevant.

And if you are being intellectually honest, you shouldn't accept A or B, until you can disprove C
This is completely at odds with how scientific progress is made. I respect your right to an opinion, but I fundamentally disagree that intellectual honesty comes into this. At best, it's your own unorthodox personal preference.

If you are trying to change someone's mind
We aren't. We offer information to those who seek it. We encourage people to perform their own experiments, and to experience the world that surrounds them for themselves. If you choose not to do that, that's fine. Your prerogative.

You engaged us entirely by choice. We didn't reach out to you, and we're not here to convince you. By pretending otherwise, you reinforce my conviction that you seek to reverse the BoP.

If the RE gravity explanation is incorrect, you'd think after thousands of years, somebody would have come up with something, somewhere, at some time, that occurs (or doesn't occur) that is inconsistent with it.
Sure. And they have. The discrepancies between observation and theory are well-documented - some of them even made it to the Wikipedia page on the subject. But I don't see why you'd waste the FES's time with something that's already taught within the mainstream at high school level. It's got nothing to do with us.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« on: August 19, 2019, 05:38:01 PM »
Unless you are suggesting that RE gravity and flat earth are consistent.
For most intents and purposes, sure.

Competing theories don't need to be disproved, but contradictory ones do.
I fundamentally disagree with your approach. To prove a theory, one does not need to individually debunk all the competition.

Consider the following:

Question: What causes things to fall down on Earth?
Proposed answers:
A) RET's "standard" gravitational model
B) FET's UA
C) YHWH is consciously and intentionally nudging every particle in the Universe, and currently it is HIS will that things should fall. Praise be.

By your premise, we cannot accept A or B until we disprove the unfalsifiable hypothesis of C. Because of that, I find your reasoning to be unacceptable. In effect, you're attempting to reverse the burden of proof, which rarely works.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« on: August 19, 2019, 09:28:02 AM »
AATW, please allow me to repeat my request:

Please substantiate the claim that in order to propose a theory, all competing theories must first be proven false. It doesn't make much sense historically, and I'd like to understand OP's reasoning behind that thought. Given that it's the cornerstone of OP's argument, it's important that we ensure we're working under reasonable assumptions, otherwise we risk jumping into unsound conclusions.

Blathering on about the differences between FE and RE is unlikely to clarify that.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« on: August 19, 2019, 08:19:26 AM »
In order for FE to be true, the the RE explanation for why things fall must be false.
Substantiate this claim.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth proof?
« on: August 18, 2019, 12:53:19 AM »
What makes you think that then Pete?
The wealth of experimental and empirical evidence which is already available to you, but which you describe as non-existent.

As someone with a scientific background  I make it my business to look at evidence both for and against.
Your words become meaningless when your actions speak so much louder.

Given that the FES has an internet and therefore global.. sorry I should say worldwide presence I don't find a claim such as 'hundreds of people just like me' particularly impressive.
It's meant to be unimpressive. We get hundreds of uninspired people who didn't bother to do their research every day, blathering away about their inability to Google. They're not special, and you're not special. Again, your claims of how studious and enlightened you are don't mean much when you start threads proudly declaring your laziness.

If you choose to be lazy or unthorough, that's fine. Nobody cares. Carry on as you were.

Do I care if you think I am wasting my time?  Not really.
For someone with a self-proclaimed "scientific background", you sure seem to struggle to understand simple sentences - or at least you really want to make yourself look that way. Regardless of whether or not you deliberately twist people's sentences in an attempt to sound witty, it does not actually help your case.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth proof?
« on: August 17, 2019, 09:03:59 PM »
This seems to be a rather wordy way of saying that you (the editors of FEW) think you know better than the mainstream, conventional way of thinking that the Earth is round.
You misunderstand. While we do think we've discovered something others are still oblivious to, that's not the part most of us seek to teach. It is the method of inquiry, and not the potential outcomes, that make a free-thinker.

As for your choice to not look at the evidence behind FE and to simply state it doesn't exist - you're wasting your time. We get hundreds of people like you every day, and to be frank, nobody cares. If you don't want to learn, there is no compulsion.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Brief History of Flat Earth
« on: August 17, 2019, 08:15:20 AM »
What?

10
Join me on an adventure in which some guy complains about problems he wasn't able to describe, and declares that if he was simply using an entirely different computer, he wouldn't have had those problems.

Embrace the thrilling action of the declaration of preparation, in which some dude explains that he owns screwdrivers and TWO USB flash drives.

Marvel at the mind-boggling problem-solving as some bloke declares that cloning hard drives is hard (and why the fuck wasn't that the first thing he tried, anyway?).

https://bgr.com/2019/08/14/laptop-hdd-to-sdd-upgrade-windows-10-install-or-os-clone-can-be-hell/

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Dome model and thermodynamics
« on: August 16, 2019, 05:35:39 AM »
So, what "error" have you found? It sounds like your wall of text boils down to two things:

1. You don't know the source of the Sun's energy. That's not an error.
2. You asked if the solar system is an isolated system, and then explained that it can't be one, thus answering your own question. What was the point of asking?

12
Right, a few things:

Honu666 - you're a first-time poster and you're immediately begging for money. This is not how we do things around here, and I've removed all links to your fundraiser.

everyone else - there is absolutely no need for you to quote the entire thread every time you post. Please only use the quote function when it's actually useful (if in doubt - don't), and when you do, limit the quote's content to the relevant part.

TheMaster:

Let's buy him a ladder, then he can have a look from 3 meters up!
Keep your amazing clapbacks to CN and AR. You've only just come back from a ban for precisely this sort of stuff. I'll give you one last warning before a longer ban.

13
Is this one better?
No, it's even worse. Taking a photo of a fake screenshot is the epitome of idiocy.

14
I strongly suggest that you familiarise yourself with other studies I shared here, across multiple threads, and on social media. Your current approach is not one I'm willing to engage with.

Please also make sure you've read the READ BEFORE POSTING: Welcome to Flat Earth Media! thread. Specifically, note that "this board is generally not intended for in-depth discussion of the materials linked."

15
why do you find it reassuring that countries/people with low general level of education tends to be more prone to believe in flat earth?
That is not what I said. Once again, note that this is in line with other studies worldwide. Your insistence that there is a correlation between a general level of education and FE is, in this case, unfounded and goes against evidence.

I also already told you what I find reassuring: "the growth of the Flat Earth Theory worldwide."

16
I do not want to be rude in any way, but it is pertinent to point out that Brazil has one of the largest shares of adults without upper secondary education in the world. It might be a correlation here.....maybe?
Given that the article already provides a breakdown of percentages per level of education, your comment is not rude, but simply useless.

A bit of reading comprehension would also have gone a long way - as I pointed out (and as the article cited also states), these results are in line with other similar studies from other parts of the world. You need multiple data points to propose a correlation, and you clearly didn't bother actually looking into the subject.

Might it be that you forgot to read the article prior to responding?

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« on: August 06, 2019, 10:50:14 AM »
I have literally seen toilets spin the opposite way round in Australia to what it does here in the UK.
Regardless of your views on the shape of the Earth, what you have "literally seen" is an urban myth, peddled primarily by con artists living around the equator. There are many factors at play here, but Coriolis is not one of them - in the Round Earth model, the force would simply be too weak to be of any significance.

Some aids:

This is a recurring question, one almost as good as "I have literally seen the curvature of the Earth on my overnight flight to Atlanta!" - you literally haven't. Humans are excitable and biased creatures. Your senses are the best way of learning about the world around you, and you should absolutely trust them. But you should also know their limitations, and account for them when necessary.

And, frankly, I doubt you actually paid as much attention to your toilets as you claim - don't you thing it sounds a bit strange to claim that you carefully observed every toilet you've used in Australia and New Zealand, noting the direction of the spin, and comparing it to every toilet you've witnessed in the UK? Surely you weren't that bored when you needed to pee?

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« on: July 30, 2019, 06:05:06 AM »
markjo, a friendly reminder that you're currently in the upper

Then why engage in a discussion about a hypothetical thought experiment?
I didn't. The objection I addressed was that it would be impossible for the velocity of the Earth to continuously increase at a constant rate for an extended period of time, and thus UA is impossible.

Pointing out that this is not required or even implied under UA is absolutely essential. There exists no actual location in which the requirements of this argument would be met.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« on: July 29, 2019, 05:35:14 PM »
Since this is a math problem, the observer is just an arbitrary reference point, so colliding with the flat earth isn't an issue.
I'm not interested in hypothetical thought experiments. There exists no observable frame of reference in which your supposed contradiction would present itself. Until you can negotiate that issue, your objection is a non-starter.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« on: July 29, 2019, 05:03:19 PM »
Okay, then please use that frame of reference to calculate how fast the flat earth would be traveling after 5000 years of accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s2.
Non-applicable. The observer would collide with the Earth much sooner than that.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 244  Next >