*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13699
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« Reply #20 on: June 04, 2021, 01:03:45 PM »
The standard dictionary definition will do.
Perhaps I was too quick to assume the "awareness"... But sure. There exists such a definition of "harmony" under which the two exist in harmony, and since you chose to replace one ambiguous definition with another, you should be pretty content with that answer.

Yes, this problem will persist until you've actually read beyond the lede and understood the piece of writing you're impotently trying to "gotcha". Nobody can help you there but yourself.

I repeat (only for the second time, so I appreciate this might not have sunk in just yet): you will not be allowed to derail this thread any further. If you want to carry on shitposting, do so in the right place.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2021, 01:12:55 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« Reply #21 on: June 04, 2021, 02:09:10 PM »
Quote
But sure. There exists such a definition of "harmony" under which the two exist in harmony, and since you chose to replace one ambiguous definition with another, you should be pretty content with that answer.

I don’t see how the standard dictionary definition can be considered “ambiguous”. If there is a sense in which the two theories can coexist, then it is misleading to say they are incompatible.

Quote
Yes, this problem will persist until you've actually read beyond the lede and understood the piece of writing you're impotently trying to "gotcha". Nobody can help you there but yourself.

There is nothing else in the article that suggests there is any sense in which the two theories are compatible.  Instead, it goes on to offer an entirely different and entirely incompatible theory. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to state that in some ways traditional theories of gravity are consistent with FE and then to on to explain how?

Quote
I repeat (only for the second time, so I appreciate this might not have sunk in just yet): you will not be allowed to derail this thread any further. If you want to carry on shitposting, do so in the right place.

When it was suggested earlier in the thread that FE and gravity weren’t not compatible, you were the one who said that was not true.  I don’t see how pointing out that your wiki says otherwise is derailing the thread or shitposting.  It was a direct response to a comment you made.


If there is some sense in which traditional theories of gravity are compatible, in what way are they?  And directly to the point of the OP, is that limited compatibility responsible for maintaining the shape of the earth (whether RE or FE)?
There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13699
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« Reply #22 on: June 05, 2021, 06:53:15 AM »
I don’t see how the standard dictionary definition can be considered “ambiguous”
Conveniently, I already provided you with the source of the ambiguity. I can't force you to see it, let alone to read it, but it's easily available to you should you choose to address it.

it is misleading to say they are incompatible.
That continues to be something you misread/misunderstood because you didn't bother to read on. I already asked you to move on, so now I'm warning you instead. If you can't stay focused enough to finish reading the article, or if you lack the common sense to simply ask questions about things you don't understand, then you're gonna have to take your posting to AR.

There is nothing else in the article that suggests there is any sense in which the two theories are compatible. 
This statement is false, and after the amount of wilfully obtuse behaviour from you above, I am convinced that this is completely deliberate. One way or another, this ends now.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2021, 06:58:46 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« Reply #23 on: June 05, 2021, 05:10:33 PM »
I don’t see how the standard dictionary definition can be considered “ambiguous”
Conveniently, I already provided you with the source of the ambiguity. I can't force you to see it, let alone to read it, but it's easily available to you should you choose to address it.

it is misleading to say they are incompatible.
That continues to be something you misread/misunderstood because you didn't bother to read on. I already asked you to move on, so now I'm warning you instead. If you can't stay focused enough to finish reading the article, or if you lack the common sense to simply ask questions about things you don't understand, then you're gonna have to take your posting to AR.

There is nothing else in the article that suggests there is any sense in which the two theories are compatible. 
This statement is false, and after the amount of wilfully obtuse behaviour from you above, I am convinced that this is completely deliberate. One way or another, this ends now.

I’m not being deliberately obtuse.  I’m trying to figure out where in FET there is room for traditional theories of gravitation.

The wiki says they are incompatible because they require a spherical earth.  That doesn’t seem to leave a lot of room.
There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13699
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« Reply #24 on: June 05, 2021, 06:59:18 PM »
The wiki says they are incompatible because they require a spherical earth.  That doesn’t seem to leave a lot of room.
It does say that, in a sense. It's just that you chose to hyperfixate on the completely wrong interpretation of these words. Since this was pointed out multiple times to you, there is no longer any doubt that you're doing so deliberately.

With that in mind, we'll see you in 5 days, hopefully you'll stop shitposting when you're back.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
« Reply #25 on: June 06, 2021, 09:02:25 PM »
Oh no, the discussion is going super wrong...

I rephrase the question.

What keeps Flat Earth united? If you say it's gravity or gravitation, just say which and how it works. The first few posts said we don't know, and if we really don't have a theory for that, please stick to "we don't know" and try no to go off-topic.


This is not a thread for gravity/gravitation thing on Flat Earth in any way.