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 - WellRoundedIndividual

Pages: < Back  1 ... 14 15 [16]
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Dark Side of the Moon
« on: January 08, 2019, 04:46:57 PM »
No, its not a straw man argument.  Totallackey keeps pointing to the fact that MSM lies and whoever else and that nothing can be trusted, and its highly possible its all fake. The same damn argument can be made for any historical textbooks, because falsehoods have regularly been found in them, as well. Therefore, you can literally have a skeptical outlook on anything that you have not personally witnessed. Stop throwing around logical fallacy as a defense when its incorrect. Does anyone need to quote the Princess Bride here?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map
« on: January 08, 2019, 04:40:14 PM »
I also reproduced his results in AutoCAD. I got the same discrepancy where the points do not converge. So not sure what your issue is, totallackey?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Dark Side of the Moon
« on: January 08, 2019, 11:54:57 AM »
So your only real evidence to prove anything is if you witness it with your own eyes?

So George Washington and Alexander the Great did not exist? I mean, what evidence do we have?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« on: January 04, 2019, 06:25:23 PM »

My apologies. I assumed, seeing as how you and Tom are the most vocal and prominent members of the website, that you would be supportive in using Rowbotham as supporting evidence in the earth being flat. I stand corrected.

And again his only claim is that there needs to be an investigation as to why one set of data has a high correlation and another does not. He does not have to substantiate anything, he already has shown it.  You are inserting irrelevancy by asking him to prove why 0.05% of the earth is statistically significant for the whole, when that is not what he was setting out to do.

And yes, this is unrelated to your request due to the fact that your request is unrelated to the subject matter.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Object Density
« on: January 04, 2019, 06:15:15 PM »
Not revive an old thread for nothing, but under the wiki page of universal acceleration, terminal velocity is described as having nothing to do with balanced forces (aka drag and gravity).  Flat Earth model suggests that terminal velocity is when the upward acceleration of the "falling object" matches the upward acceleration of the earth.

Does anyone care to explain what is meant by upward acceleration? Since this is under the Universal Acceleration wiki page, I would assume that at some altitude the FE theory suggests that UA begins to act upon the "falling" object? I have also read several different theories on what provides the "force" behind UA. Some suggest dark matter (which is inherently funny, given that a lot of FE believers scoff at the existence of other particles demonstrated to exist), Pete Svarrior suggest that the UA is a flowing current of aether. I have even read that UA is selective on what it acts upon.  So is there a unified theory on UA and how it acts upon multiple objects? Is the "current" strong enough to create an effect where it can wrap around the edges of the earth to some degree to create terminal velocity??

I am having difficulty wrapping my head around this. Just for some background, I am a degreed mechanical engineer from Rose-Hulman, so I do have basic understanding of how things work (although English and grammar are not my strong points).

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« on: January 04, 2019, 03:32:21 PM »
Tom needs to explain why the UK data so strongly correlates with globe earth.
Does he? You've found a correlation that allegedly applies to >0.05% of the Earth.

Why don't you explain why you find this statistically significant, and why you think correlation implies a causal link?

I am pretty sure when you say "allegedly applies to >0.05% of the earth" combined with your question using the phrase "statistically significant" means that you currently are of the opinion that his data is not representative of the entire surface of the earth and that he needs to prove the link with something else. Which, obviously, you or Tom will refute again, ad nauseam. Yes, while you did not use that specific combination of words, language and word combinations are strongly indicative of what you mean to say, and given that you believe in a Flat Earth, this further shows what your words mean.

And yes, you are an advocate of the opposite claim. You believe in a Flat Earth. You believe that Rowbotham's data is representative of proof of a flat earth.

And where is the substantiation that Rowbotham's data is correct? This is a flat earth forum, therefore it should be substantiated.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« on: January 04, 2019, 03:06:42 PM »
First off, let me say that I have been reading these forums for a while now, and decided to jump into the fray.

I could not let the last reply from Pete stand due to its logical inconsistency.

Pete, you say that UK data does not imply a causal link since it represents a statistical insignificant amount of the geographical surface of the Earth.

Logically, this implies that the data that supports a flat earth is statistically significant and therefore proves the flat earth theory.

However, the reverse could be said that your flat earth data only represents a small amount of the geographical surface of the earth and therefore does not imply a causal link.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 14 15 [16]