The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: legoclone09 on February 05, 2016, 01:41:56 AM
-
Just a question I have, and I only really came here to ask this. Not sure if it belongs here, so mods please move it if it isn't meant to be here.
EDIT: I can take a picture of it when it is over my hometown next, you can see a picture of what it is supposed to look like here:
(http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/iss-from-binoculars.jpg)
-
I see a grainy spec in the photo. Not exactly sure what the point is.
-
I see a grainy spec in the photo. Not exactly sure what the point is.
It's what the ISS looks like, here are some more photos:
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2011/02/robbullen_iss_discovery.jpg) From DiscoverMagazine
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f101/chicagoastronomer/Astronomical/SpaceCrafts/ISS/ISS09Apr10.jpg) From a telescope
-
All that from binoculars, huh?
-
All that from binoculars, huh?
Was just going to ask that same thing... And where I can obtain a pair...
-
All that from binoculars, huh?
Yes, I've seen it without binoculars and it is just a white speck moving fast. It's only about 250 miles up, and you should be able to see that far with binoculars. If you use a telescope it is harder to catch it but the improved magnification should let you clearly see it. There are no viewings until past the middle of this month for where I am, but I will take a picture of it with my telescope when I can.
EDIT: Found a video of the ISS from the ground, it looks like what I remember it looking like when I saw it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44zARwvM-Qo
-
I mean no disrespect, but it looks like a speck of light.
-
I mean no disrespect, but it looks like a speck of light.
That's what I said, it is a speck of light. I posted that to show what it looks like without binoculars/a telescope. With a telescope you are able to see it far better.
-
Kind of odd that something that is supposed to circle the Earth every 90 minutes won't be visible for several weeks.
-
Kind of odd that something that is supposed to circle the Earth every 90 minutes won't be visible for several weeks.
It's the inclination, it is inclined like this:
(http://www.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/ISS-orbit-in-May.jpg)
It passes over my city I live in when the Earth rotates under it's orbit and when it is over us.
-
Kind of odd that something that is supposed to circle the Earth every 90 minutes won't be visible for several weeks.
It's the inclination, it is inclined like this:
(http://www.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/ISS-orbit-in-May.jpg)
It passes over my city I live in when the Earth rotates under it's orbit and when it is over us.
Jora is justified in his assertion. If the ISS is in that orbit, traveling around the world every 90 minutes, that means it is making that circuit 8 times a night (assuming 12 hour nights) as the earth spins beneath it. That means North America will pass under it, Europe will pass under it, and Asia will pass under it during that time.
-
I can make and upload a video with an example of what I'm talking about and showing why it can't be seen. It does cross over Asia and Europe but it is at the wrong point in it's orbit to be visible, and the Sun has to reflect off of it for it to be able to be seen. It has viewing windows at some times due to this, they can be seen here: http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/view.cfm?country=United_States®ion=California&city=San_Diego#.VrQ7ra876rU (http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/view.cfm?country=United_States®ion=California&city=San_Diego#.VrQ7ra876rU)
-
@ Tom and jroa
Inclination and altitude determine how long it would take for an object orbiting to pass over the same point on the Earth. I know you do not accept a RE, but it fits with in the RE model.
A object in a equatorial orbit would be visible similar to what I think you are pointing out.
The ISS orbit inclination is 51.6 degrees. The ISS right now is over the Pacific Ocean somewhat west of California. In 92 minutes it will be further west of California.
I find it hard to believe if you are trying to disprove the Earth is round you do not understand the orbit inclination and altitude determines how often an orbiting object would pass over the same point on a RE. Seems you would need to have an understanding of this kind of stuff to know it is impossible.
@OP
Great game.
-
Looks fake to me. ::)
-
So to ask a simple question, do flat earthers generally not believe in satellites at all?
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
-
Just a question I have, and I only really came here to ask this. Not sure if it belongs here, so mods please move it if it isn't meant to be here.
EDIT: I can take a picture of it when it is over my hometown next, you can see a picture of what it is supposed to look like here:
(http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/iss-from-binoculars.jpg)
Has it went over your hometown yet? We're still waiting for your personal photo of the ISS through Binoculars
-
I find it hard to believe if you are trying to disprove the Earth is round you do not understand the orbit inclination and altitude determines how often an orbiting object would pass over the same point on a RE. Seems you would need to have an understanding of this kind of stuff to know it is impossible.
Hate to do it, but I have to disagree with this point. I don't believe dragons exist, or ever have. I do not know anything about their supposed diet, migratory patterns, or the physics of dragon flight either. Understanding of those things is not a requirement for knowing that dragons don't exist, any more than understanding the physics of a Star Trek warp core is required to know warp speed travel does not exist, etc...
-
Just a question I have, and I only really came here to ask this. Not sure if it belongs here, so mods please move it if it isn't meant to be here.
EDIT: I can take a picture of it when it is over my hometown next, you can see a picture of what it is supposed to look like here:
(http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/iss-from-binoculars.jpg)
Has it went over your hometown yet? We're still waiting for your personal photo of the ISS through Binoculars
It has, but could not capture it. Currently it is only visible during the morning for a while, not sure about later this month, though.
-
There are several online resources to help you find the ISS in the sky. My favorite is the ISS Astroviewer (http://iss.astroviewer.net/observation.php)
-
Posted this image a few times now, took it with my phone in Copenhagen. At this point it was directly over Frankfurt IIRC, that's as close as it ever gets to where I live
-
I saw a little light fly across the sky the other night. That is proof that the Earth is round, lol.
-
I saw a little light fly across the sky the other night. That is proof that the Earth is round, lol.
Get a pair of binoculars as the thread title suggests.
-
I saw a little light fly across the sky the other night. That is proof that the Earth is round, lol.
Nah, that's Papa's Citation.
-
The ISS is a satellite, as there are other satellites, too.
That being said, do people actually live in that thing? No way. It's a complicated tin can circling above the earth, not exactly a home.
-
The ISS is a satellite, as there are other satellites, too.
That being said, do people actually live in that thing? No way. It's a complicated tin can circling above the earth, not exactly a home.
Please give some evidence. The words of a rabbit, elusive of otherwise, mean nothing!
-
The ISS is a satellite, as there are other satellites, too.
Please give some evidence.
You and I, a round earther and a flat earther, are on more-or-less the same page for once... and you're still asking me for evidence? ::)
Anyway, regarding this point of mine:
That being said, do people actually live in that thing? No way. It's a complicated tin can circling above the earth, not exactly a home.
People don't live in satellites.
-
Anyway, regarding this point of mine:
That being said, do people actually live in that thing? No way. It's a complicated tin can circling above the earth, not exactly a home.
People don't live in satellites.
Your first assertion seemed lacking in evidence but "People don't live in satellites" really backs it up.
-
Anyway, regarding this point of mine:
That being said, do people actually live in that thing? No way. It's a complicated tin can circling above the earth, not exactly a home.
People don't live in satellites.
Your first assertion seemed lacking in evidence but "People don't live in satellites" :P :P really backs it up. :P :P
I hope I improved it!
Evidence? Hard-to-find Bugs Bunny calls that evidence?
-
Evidence? Hard-to-find Bugs Bunny calls that evidence?
I chuckled. Now, I want you guys to think about this one-- something I know can be really difficult, but I want you to give it a shot. ;)
Think about where people live. Homes, huts, bungalows, RVs, trailers, apartments, motels, condos, hotels, and the list goes on and on. What do these places all have in common? They: a) are located on the ground, which is where we live. b) serve genuine functions, such as providing running water and heating or, simply, protection from the elements. c) are located near other shelters and places of residence, oftentimes. d) are located near resources such as fresh water supplies, lots of food, etc.
People don't live in planes, hot air balloons, jets, helicopters, gliders, or anything like that. Why? Because they: a) are located in the air, which we can't continuously live in. b) will be much more difficult, if not impossible, to serve genuine functions and provide protection from the elements (over longer periods of time, a few hours on a flight is fine). c) are isolated forms of "shelter", meaning you won't have any neighbors or community. d) are isolated from important resources such as food and water. Plus, you have to land and re-fuel at some point, and somebody has to keep an eye on the controls, and so much more.
So, taking this all into consideration, do you find a tin can circling above the earth-- supposedly permanently-- flying around all by its lonesome, with no close proximity to any form of resources (whether human or food or whatever) and an extremely questionable, highly unlikely ability to provide functions and shelter, a suitable place for anybody to live? Furthermore, do you find my assertion that people don't live there more crazy than your guys' assertion that people do live there?
-
I'm sure they are faking it.
https://youtu.be/8MR3daaWLXI
-
Evidence? Hard-to-find Bugs Bunny calls that evidence?
I chuckled. Now, I want you guys to think about this one-- something I know can be really difficult, but I want you to give it a shot. ;)
Think about where people live. Homes, huts, bungalows, RVs, trailers, apartments, motels, condos, hotels, and the list goes on and on. What do these places all have in common? They: a) are located on the ground, which is where we live. b) serve genuine functions, such as providing running water and heating or, simply, protection from the elements. c) are located near other shelters and places of residence, oftentimes. d) are located near resources such as fresh water supplies, lots of food, etc.
People don't live in planes, hot air balloons, jets, helicopters, gliders, or anything like that. Why? Because they: a) are located in the air, which we can't continuously live in. b) will be much more difficult, if not impossible, to serve genuine functions and provide protection from the elements (over longer periods of time, a few hours on a flight is fine). c) are isolated forms of "shelter", meaning you won't have any neighbors or community. d) are isolated from important resources such as food and water. Plus, you have to land and re-fuel at some point, and somebody has to keep an eye on the controls, and so much more.
So, taking this all into consideration, do you find a tin can circling above the earth-- supposedly permanently-- flying around all by its lonesome, with no close proximity to any form of resources (whether human or food or whatever) and an extremely questionable, highly unlikely ability to provide functions and shelter, a suitable place for anybody to live? Furthermore, do you find my assertion that people don't live there more crazy than your guys' assertion that people do live there?
Yes.
-
Yes.
Please explain. The burden of proof is with you guys.
-
Evidence? Hard-to-find Bugs Bunny calls that evidence?
I chuckled. Now, I want you guys to think about this one-- something I know can be really difficult, but I want you to give it a shot. ;)
Think about where people live. Homes, huts, bungalows, RVs, trailers, apartments, motels, condos, hotels, and the list goes on and on. What do these places all have in common? They: a) are located on the ground, which is where we live. b) serve genuine functions, such as providing running water and heating or, simply, protection from the elements. c) are located near other shelters and places of residence, oftentimes. d) are located near resources such as fresh water supplies, lots of food, etc.
People don't live in planes, hot air balloons, jets, helicopters, gliders, or anything like that. Why? Because they: a) are located in the air, which we can't continuously live in. b) will be much more difficult, if not impossible, to serve genuine functions and provide protection from the elements (over longer periods of time, a few hours on a flight is fine). c) are isolated forms of "shelter", meaning you won't have any neighbors or community. d) are isolated from important resources such as food and water. Plus, you have to land and re-fuel at some point, and somebody has to keep an eye on the controls, and so much more.
So, taking this all into consideration, do you find a tin can circling above the earth-- supposedly permanently-- flying around all by its lonesome, with no close proximity to any form of resources (whether human or food or whatever) and an extremely questionable, highly unlikely ability to provide functions and shelter, a suitable place for anybody to live? Furthermore, do you find my assertion that people don't live there more crazy than your guys' assertion that people do live there?
What you don't realize is how there are frequent cargo missions to it, it does not have engines or fuel, that's what ORBIT means, and it is shipped air and such on those cargo missions. There are several people on it, for community, and they have exercise machines to keep fit. They switch their time between exercise and science experiments and rest to keep them active and not insane.
-
Evidence? Hard-to-find Bugs Bunny calls that evidence?
I chuckled. Now, I want you guys to think about this one-- something I know can be really difficult, but I want you to give it a shot. ;)
Think about where people live. Homes, huts, bungalows, RVs, trailers, apartments, motels, condos, hotels, and the list goes on and on. What do these places all have in common? They: a) are located on the ground, which is where we live. b) serve genuine functions, such as providing running water and heating or, simply, protection from the elements. c) are located near other shelters and places of residence, oftentimes. d) are located near resources such as fresh water supplies, lots of food, etc.
People don't live in planes, hot air balloons, jets, helicopters, gliders, or anything like that. Why? Because they: a) are located in the air, which we can't continuously live in. b) will be much more difficult, if not impossible, to serve genuine functions and provide protection from the elements (over longer periods of time, a few hours on a flight is fine). c) are isolated forms of "shelter", meaning you won't have any neighbors or community. d) are isolated from important resources such as food and water. Plus, you have to land and re-fuel at some point, and somebody has to keep an eye on the controls, and so much more.
So, taking this all into consideration, do you find a tin can circling above the earth-- supposedly permanently-- flying around all by its lonesome, with no close proximity to any form of resources (whether human or food or whatever) and an extremely questionable, highly unlikely ability to provide functions and shelter, a suitable place for anybody to live? Furthermore, do you find my assertion that people don't live there more crazy than your guys' assertion that people do live there?
I asked for evidence. That is not evidence.
Back in the days of early global exploration in sailing ships people were away from home and support for months at a time, without any contact with homebase at all.
Judging be the death rate on those expedition's, that was at least as hazardous as being on the ISS.
Or look at Amundsen's and Scott''s expeditions to the South Pole. They were in an environment every bit as hostile as space in its own way. At least on the ISS they have comfortable living conditions.
We're all those expeditions fake for that reason.
You can't understand why anyone would do it, so you claim it is all faked. I don't see any value in that as evidence.
-
I asked for evidence. That is not evidence.
Back in the days of early global exploration in sailing ships people were away from home and support for months at a time, without any contact with homebase at all.
Judging be the death rate on those expedition's, that was at least as hazardous as being on the ISS.
Or look at Amundsen's and Scott''s expeditions to the South Pole. They were in an environment every bit as hostile as space in its own way. At least on the ISS they have comfortable living conditions.
We're all those expeditions fake for that reason.
You can't understand why anyone would do it, so you claim it is all faked. I don't see any value in that as evidence.
It is observational evidence.
As well, I don't consider a ship at sea and a tin can circling above the planar Earth on the same level, in terms of travel and safety (or lack thereof). Also, an Antarctic expedition isn't nearly as hostile as the way space is described as supposedly being. And they don't have comfortable living conditions on the ISS because no one lives there. Anyway, these expeditions that you mentioned weren't faked, obviously.
This has less to do with me understanding why anyone would do it, and more to do with me understanding that people can't do it. I very much doubt that we're capable of such a feat as going into space, especially for prolonged periods of time. People can survive the vast oceans and harsh, frozen wastelands for a brief time, but space? That's a whole 'nother ballpark.
-
I asked for evidence. That is not evidence.
Back in the days of early global exploration in sailing ships people were away from home and support for months at a time, without any contact with homebase at all.
Judging be the death rate on those expedition's, that was at least as hazardous as being on the ISS.
Or look at Amundsen's and Scott''s expeditions to the South Pole. They were in an environment every bit as hostile as space in its own way. At least on the ISS they have comfortable living conditions.
We're all those expeditions fake for that reason.
You can't understand why anyone would do it, so you claim it is all faked. I don't see any value in that as evidence.
It is observational evidence.
As well, I don't consider a ship at sea and a tin can circling above the planar Earth on the same level, in terms of travel and safety (or lack thereof). Also, an Antarctic expedition isn't nearly as hostile as the way space is described as supposedly being. And they don't have comfortable living conditions on the ISS because no one lives there. Anyway, these expeditions that you mentioned weren't faked, obviously.
This has less to do with me understanding why anyone would do it, and more to do with me understanding that people can't do it. I very much doubt that we're capable of such a feat as going into space, especially for prolonged periods of time. People can survive the vast oceans and harsh, frozen wastelands for a brief time, but space? That's a whole 'nother ballpark.
They can survive space in an artificial life support system.
Even in the Antarctic survival for more than a short time does need "artificial" life support, much less high-tech than the ISS, but still artificial.
In a raging sea the artificial environment of the ship is vital, lose that and you're gone in a few minutes.
But you are the same as so many other Flat Earthers.
They are so deluded by their own imagined brilliance that they think that if they can't understand something, it can't be done.
Whereas a more realistic attitude is to recognise that if you can't understand something you should do some research into the topic.
It was Einstein that said "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."
-
But you are the same as so many other Flat Earthers.
They are so deluded by their own imagined brilliance that they think that if they can't understand something, it can't be done.
Whereas a more realistic attitude is to recognise that if you can't understand something you should do some research into the topic.
It was Einstein that said "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."
Since this is devolving into off-topic personal attacks, as so many of you round eathers are strangely fond of, I'll be ditching this thread following this post.
I'm not deluded by my own imagined brilliance. I'm not that smart, nor am I especially skilled. I consider myself to be an everyday man. As well, it's not for a lack of understanding that I think something can't be done, but rather my understanding heavily inclines me to believe that it can't be done. Therefore, I profess that it can't be done.
You know what I didn't understand? How could the Earth be a globe? Funny enough, I ended up here.
-
I'm not deluded by my own imagined brilliance. I'm not that smart, nor am I especially skilled. I consider myself to be an everyday man. As well, it's not for a lack of understanding that I think something can't be done, but rather my understanding heavily inclines me to believe that it can't be done. Therefore, I profess that it can't be done.
You know what I didn't understand? How could the Earth be a globe? Funny enough, I ended up here.
I think you have verified exactly what I was saying.
You claim "my understanding heavily inclines me to believe that it can't be done. Therefore, I profess that it can't be done."
My whole point is simply because you or I believe something can't be done really means nothing.
Neither you nor I can know how everything can be done, but that does not mean that they cannot be done.
Now it's your right to believe that something cannot be don't, but to go from there to "profess that it can't be done" and accuse others of deception is a step too far.
What you are doing is accusing numerous others of intentionally deceiving us, they are people, so you are also guilty of personal attacks.
Bye bye.
-
My whole point is simply because you or I believe something can't be done really means nothing.
Neither you nor I can know how everything can be done, but that does not mean that they cannot be done.
You know what, I'll come back for a little bit. How is that for a change of heart? :-*
For example: Based on my understanding of human anatomy, I'm aware that we cannot fly without assistance. Therefore, I profess the belief that unaided flight cannot be achieved. This isn't a matter of simply not knowing how unaided flight can be done, of merely believing that it can't be done. It is a matter of examining the available evidence, thinking it through, and drawing a logical conclusion, one that becomes my belief. Beliefs in the viability, or lack thereof, of things are relevant. Such beliefs have a basis.
Another example: Based on my understanding of Noah's Ark, I'm aware that such a situation is preposterous. There, I profess the belief that Noah's Ark is a myth. This isn't a matter of simply not knowing how Noah's Ark could be done (though Ken Ham may have tried to explain it, that moron...), of merely believing that it can't be done. It is a matter of examining the available evidence, thinking it through, and drawing a logical conclusion, one that becomes my belief. Again-- beliefs in the viability, or lack thereof, of things are relevant. Such beliefs have a basis.
-
My whole point is simply because you or I believe something can't be done really means nothing.
Neither you nor I can know how everything can be done, but that does not mean that they cannot be done.
You know what, I'll come back for a little bit. How is that for a change of heart? :-*
For example: Based on my understanding of human anatomy, I'm aware that we cannot fly without assistance. Therefore, I profess the belief that unaided flight cannot be achieved. This isn't a matter of simply not knowing how unaided flight can be done, of merely believing that it can't be done. It is a matter of examining the available evidence, thinking it through, and drawing a logical conclusion, one that becomes my belief. Beliefs in the viability, or lack thereof, of things are relevant. Such beliefs have a basis.
Another example: Based on my understanding of Noah's Ark, I'm aware that such a situation is preposterous. There, I profess the belief that Noah's Ark is a myth. This isn't a matter of simply not knowing how Noah's Ark could be done (though Ken Ham may have tried to explain it, that moron...),
Fancy bringing up Ken Ham. He happens to come from here, and is a not too distant relative - well one of my sons married on one Ken Ham's neices.
But don't worry about offending me. Both my son and I think about the same of Ken Ham as you do, :P though I wouldn't use the term moron in the presence of my son's in-laws! :P
of merely believing that it can't be done. It is a matter of examining the available evidence, thinking it through, and drawing a logical conclusion, one that becomes my belief. Again-- beliefs in the viability, or lack thereof, of things are relevant. Such beliefs have a basis.
I guess our conclusions differ somewhat. I would think that living in the ISS is somewhat akin to living in a nuclear submarine that can stay immersed for months.
The outside environment in the submarine is more hostile in many ways.
A submarine can be subject to tens of atmospheres pressure trying to crush the pressure hull.
The ISS is only subject to a pressure difference of one atmosphere, and that is pushing outwards, that requires a far less strong "pressure vessel".
This environment outside the submarine is just at deadly to humans as that outside the ISS.
If there is a serious malfunction in a submarine we know the end result - almost certain death, unless they are shallow enough to allow escape suits to be used.
In the case of a crushed hull, and it has happened often enough, the end of the submarine crew is well known.
Minor leaks in the ISS do occur and can be repaired. While the ISS is pressurised to sea-level conditions, the crew could survive much lower pressures for quite a long period.
'Nuff said, you don't believe humans can do it, I and I guess most people do.
-
Yes.
Please explain. The burden of proof is with you guys.
You must be kidding.
With all of the half-assed assumptions in your reply, like ISS being a tincan orbiting the Earth, "supposedly forever", the burden of proof is on me? Are you new here?
If you regard modern science to be wrong, well that's another thing. Then YOU proof that the math is bad. Many have tried and failed here, sandokhans efforts being the most notable of attempts (well, apart from Rowbotham).
If it's not about bad math, then "The images are obvious fakes" ain't gonna cut it. I'm going to pull a TFES response on that and tell you to "look for the answers in the forum". There's the round earth repository for instance.
You'll probably also find that I supplied photos taken from HAB's as well showing curvature and open sourced the design and code to run it. You'll find plenty of so-called round earthers knowing their math ripping FET apart. The "images are fake and I don't truly know what Composite imaging really means" reply is the tell-tale of someone not making any effort whatsoever.
-
Yes.
Please explain. The burden of proof is with you guys.
You must be kidding.
At the end of the day, I'm saying that this Earth is as you perceive it-- flat! If you, and others, would like to challenge that and present a theory proposing that the Earth is, in fact, a spinning globe flying through the endless vortex of space around a giant nuclear fusion sphere, then go for it. Try and make it convincing this time.
-
At the end of the day, I'm saying that this Earth is as you perceive it-- flat! If you, and others, would like to challenge that and present a theory proposing that the Earth is, in fact, a spinning globe flying through the endless vortex of space around a giant nuclear fusion sphere, then go for it. Try and make it convincing this time.
Exactly, at the end of the day, you're saying that the Earth is flat - Together with a fairly narrow collection of so-called free thinkers who did their utmost to molest the concept of free thinking, turning it into a BS carte blanche. In essence, I understand why and I actually endorse the thought experiment as long as you as intellectual adults nurse and acknowledge the fact that it's exactly that - An entertaining thought experiment.
As to whether or not I'm supposed to prove to you that Earth is round - That notion itself is quite a few steps ahead of what used to be an intellectual debate attributing core principals and concepts to rational thinking. First of those being supplying one single piece of evidence that comes just remotely close to nurishing any sort of sensible, rational doubt about "what we know" - Then, you carry on to build the foundation of what is to become a fully-fledged theory, ready to be backed up by evidence. Then you present all of the above as a whole, connecting the dots between observation (facts) and theory (explanation) and THEN, but only then, are you eligible to draw the "burden of proof card".
Since none of that is remotely close to resembling reality just yet, the "burden of proof" card is a card that doesn't belong in the deck at all. Even if the burden of proof were on FET. There's nothing to suggest that FET has come close to discovering anything that could rise the slightest bit of doubt about the shape of the Earth. That's your task for now. Personal belief has no place in this realm, and you know that as well.
-
Yes.
Please explain. The burden of proof is with you guys.
You must be kidding.
At the end of the day, I'm saying that this Earth is as you perceive it-- flat! If you, and others, would like to challenge that and present a theory proposing that the Earth is, in fact, a spinning globe flying through the endless vortex of space around a giant nuclear fusion sphere, then go for it. Try and make it convincing this time.
I'm pretty convinced that it doesn't matter what most people actually believe. I haven't met very many who have actually had to predict, design, or execute anything that was actually dependant on the shape of the earth or its position in the universe. They are completely free to believe what they want because nothing is really required of that belief. There is really no consequence, outside of social, for adhering to it. Now if one had to calculate ballistics, put something in orbit, design flight paths for efficiency, plan a battle 3 months ahead of schedule based on the suns rise and azimuth, create communication networks, design navigation equipment, or generate formulas for engineering and design purposes then we are in the realm of real science not just conjecture. Here ones understanding of the earth and it position actually matters.
-
Exactly, at the end of the day, you're saying that the Earth is flat - Together with a fairly narrow collection of so-called free thinkers who did their utmost to molest the concept of free thinking, turning it into a BS carte blanche.
I've never bothered to call myself a free thinker, and I rarely see that term floating around here. The way I see it, who even thinks about the shape of the Earth? There are plenty, plenty of so-called free thinkers that don't even consider the possibility that the Earth is anything but a sphere. It isn't for a lack of intelligence necessarily, but instead because nobody bothers to consider the possibility. That's all.
As to whether or not I'm supposed to prove to you that Earth is round - That notion itself is quite a few steps ahead of what used to be an intellectual debate attributing core principals and concepts to rational thinking. First of those being supplying one single piece of evidence that comes just remotely close to nourishing any sort of sensible, rational doubt about "what we know" - Then, you carry on to build the foundation of what is to become a fully-fledged theory, ready to be backed up by evidence. Then you present all of the above as a whole, connecting the dots between observation (facts) and theory (explanation) and THEN, but only then, are you eligible to draw the "burden of proof card".
Between Atheism and religion, the burden of proof lies with religion. Atheists, in calling upon the senses and including a sensible involvement with reality, readily concludes that there is no god: we have no way of perceiving this supposed being, there is no evidence of a deity, no verifiable encounters, no proof, nothing. Their perception clearly tells them a fundamental truth of this reality. So, when somebody else comes along and presents a much more complicated, perception-defying framework that includes concepts such as god, the burden of proof lies with that somebody to prove such an assertion. I think this analogy illustrates the flat earth and round earth burden of proof issue.
There's nothing to suggest that FET has come close to discovering anything that could rise the slightest bit of doubt about the shape of the Earth. That's your task for now.
The evidence is out there. If you don't think there is even a scrap of evidence, anything at all resembling evidence, that could raise the slightest doubt about the shape of the Earth, that is your issue.
-
Exactly, at the end of the day, you're saying that the Earth is flat - Together with a fairly narrow collection of so-called free thinkers who did their utmost to molest the concept of free thinking, turning it into a BS carte blanche.
I've never bothered to call myself a free thinker, and I rarely see that term floating around here. The way I see it, who even thinks about the shape of the Earth? There are plenty, plenty of so-called free thinkers that don't even consider the possibility that the Earth is anything but a sphere. It isn't for a lack of intelligence necessarily, but instead because nobody bothers to consider the possibility. That's all.
As to whether or not I'm supposed to prove to you that Earth is round - That notion itself is quite a few steps ahead of what used to be an intellectual debate attributing core principals and concepts to rational thinking. First of those being supplying one single piece of evidence that comes just remotely close to nourishing any sort of sensible, rational doubt about "what we know" - Then, you carry on to build the foundation of what is to become a fully-fledged theory, ready to be backed up by evidence. Then you present all of the above as a whole, connecting the dots between observation (facts) and theory (explanation) and THEN, but only then, are you eligible to draw the "burden of proof card".
Between Atheism and religion, the burden of proof lies with religion. Atheists, in calling upon the senses and including a sensible involvement with reality, readily concludes that there is no god: we have no way of perceiving this supposed being, there is no evidence of a deity, no verifiable encounters, no proof, nothing. Their perception clearly tells them a fundamental truth of this reality. So, when somebody else comes along and presents a much more complicated, perception-defying framework that includes concepts such as god, the burden of proof lies with that somebody to prove such an assertion. I think this analogy illustrates the flat earth and round earth burden of proof issue.
There's nothing to suggest that FET has come close to discovering anything that could rise the slightest bit of doubt about the shape of the Earth. That's your task for now.
The evidence is out there. If you don't think there is even a scrap of evidence, anything at all resembling evidence, that could raise the slightest doubt about the shape of the Earth, that is your issue.
There's not. If you believe there is, show me.