Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
2+2
« on: February 13, 2017, 02:50:34 PM »
Why would you believe an ancient religious text when considering the shape of the earth?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6403
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2017, 11:33:45 AM »
Why would you believe an ancient religious text when considering the shape of the earth?

The ancients actually spent lifetimes studying and considering the earth's shape from a fresh start, unlike Astronomers today who merely point to Aristotile's Three Proofs when arguing that the earth is round.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5505
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2017, 09:01:22 PM »
The ancients actually spent lifetimes studying and considering the earth's shape from a fresh start, unlike Astronomers today who merely point to Aristotile's Three Proofs when arguing that the earth is round.

I think they point to the plethora of photographic, video and eyewitness evidence of the Earth being round; at least that is what I would do.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6403
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2017, 08:34:23 PM »
The ancients actually spent lifetimes studying and considering the earth's shape from a fresh start, unlike Astronomers today who merely point to Aristotile's Three Proofs when arguing that the earth is round.

I think they point to the plethora of photographic, video and eyewitness evidence of the Earth being round; at least that is what I would do.

When Astronomers are not quoting NASA, they are quoting Aristotle. No research for their own selves. That is why the study of the earth by ancient civilizations should be considered. They did not have an easy authority to appeal to. They had to actually study the matter afresh if they wanted to know anything.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2017, 05:16:40 AM »
When Astronomers are not quoting NASA, they are quoting Aristotle.
Citation needed.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6403
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2017, 10:49:18 PM »
When Astronomers are not quoting NASA, they are quoting Aristotle.
Citation needed.

You will have to take my word for it. Over ten years, between this site and the other one, no astronomer has ever done anything to prove his position other than link us to space pictures or quote ancient astronomers who believed that the earth was a globe.

Offline Flatout

  • *
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2017, 01:27:39 AM »
No modern astronomer uses the modeling of Aristotle.  Aristotle may have gotten the shape of the earth right but the predictive capability of his model was was not very accurate. 
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 01:41:54 AM by Flatout »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6403
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2017, 05:26:39 AM »
No modern astronomer uses the modeling of Aristotle.  Aristotle may have gotten the shape of the earth right but the predictive capability of his model was was not very accurate.

Modern astronomers do use the proofs of Aristotle to show that the earth is round. They go into the sinking ship effect, the lunar eclipse, and declining stars, most usually without reading any of the Flat Earth books or literature beforehand.

Nothing really original comes out of them. That is why we have to resort to looking at the work of ancient astronomers who conducted investigation without all of the dogma and authority appeals to burden them.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 12:09:16 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5505
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2017, 07:41:12 AM »
Modern astronomers they do use the proofs of Aristotle to show that the earth is round. They go into the sinking ship effect, the lunar eclipse, and declining stars, most usually without reading any of the Flat Earth books or literature beforehand.

Nothing really original comes out of them. That is why we have to resort to looking at the work of ancient astronomers who conducted investigation without all of the dogma and authority appeals to burden them.

This is completely incorrect.  I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature.  There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6403
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #9 on: March 28, 2017, 12:12:58 PM »
This is completely incorrect.  I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature.  There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.

The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5505
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #10 on: March 28, 2017, 03:29:17 PM »
This is completely incorrect.  I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature.  There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.

The criticism is weak and easily rebutted.

In your mind, yes.

Quote
But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic.

Modern astronomers have looked at the Earth through orbital telescopes, satellites and space probes.  Your denial of space flight does not change this. 

Quote
This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.

No, this is why we need you to get out there and sight the ISS with a good enough telescope to see that it is a man-made object and then do some triangulation to verify it's altitude and consequently it's velocity.  You could do yourself one better and get some contacts in the southern hemisphere to plot the course of the ISS across the sky and then plot the results on a globe, or your bipolar projection and see which model the data matches best with.  From that information you will be able to dispel the misapprehension you are labouring under about the shape of the Earth and can stop impugning the credibility of people with knowledge you lack.

You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 701
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2017, 04:46:00 AM »
This is completely incorrect.  I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature.  There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.

The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.

I haven't seen any original proofs that 2+2=4 lately. Everyone just uses the same proofs that were used millennia ago. Weak.
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei

Offline Rekt

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2017, 12:40:57 PM »
This is completely incorrect.  I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature.  There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.

The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.

I haven't seen any original proofs that 2+2=4 lately. Everyone just uses the same proofs that were used millennia ago. Weak.
Yeah, I feel that the government has really pulled the wool over our eyes on this one. 2+2 is obviously fish, your millennia old proof can't dispute my cold hard observations.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2017, 05:03:36 AM »
When Astronomers are not quoting NASA, they are quoting Aristotle.
Citation needed.

You will have to take my word for it.

Nope, that's never been good enough for you, it's not good enough for me.  And why should it be?  You're just some random stranger on the internet, what good is your word?
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6403
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2017, 05:02:04 AM »
This is completely incorrect.  I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature.  There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.

The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.

I haven't seen any original proofs that 2+2=4 lately. Everyone just uses the same proofs that were used millennia ago. Weak.

That's right. Astronomers are just using the same proofs that were used millennia ago. No one is coming up with anything new, which is why it is important to look at Ancient societies who built alternative world models and were willing to consider the fundamentals from the ground up.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2017, 05:04:18 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6403
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #15 on: May 13, 2017, 05:03:12 AM »
When Astronomers are not quoting NASA, they are quoting Aristotle.
Citation needed.

You will have to take my word for it.

Nope, that's never been good enough for you, it's not good enough for me.  And why should it be?  You're just some random stranger on the internet, what good is your word?

If you don't want to take my word for it, you are free to search through the last 10 years of messages between this site and the other site until you find the posts you are looking for.

Re: 2+2
« Reply #16 on: June 13, 2017, 08:45:12 PM »
Has Astronomy ever been anything more than the fixation on a star and counting how many times it blinks? I'm not totally sure we have anything much better than the Ancients had as far as accomplishing that.

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 701
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #17 on: June 13, 2017, 10:04:23 PM »
This is completely incorrect.  I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature.  There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.

The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.

I haven't seen any original proofs that 2+2=4 lately. Everyone just uses the same proofs that were used millennia ago. Weak.

That's right. Astronomers are just using the same proofs that were used millennia ago. No one is coming up with anything new, which is why it is important to look at Ancient societies who built alternative world models and were willing to consider the fundamentals from the ground up.

My post was about the value of two plus two.

The only reason we think we know the correct answer is because we're using the same old proofs. If we would use some different proofs for once we would realize that two plus two does not equal what we've been duped into believing it does.
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9515
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: 2+2
« Reply #18 on: June 13, 2017, 10:46:33 PM »
My post was about the value of two plus two.
Perhaps you should consider staying on topic, then?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 701
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #19 on: June 14, 2017, 03:17:36 AM »
My post was about the value of two plus two.
staying on topic
Yes. Thanks.
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei