*

Offline Merkava

  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Masterdebater
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #20 on: August 08, 2017, 06:59:27 PM »
It's the one commonly accepted among the world (by a wide margin)

Religion is most commonly accepted among the world. Therefore religion is true and science is false. Burden is on you to disprove religion.

Who says that God is untestable? He exists, He does things, therefore He is testable. Once you are able to disprove God, get back to us, because the burden is on you to disprove this popular null hypothesis and not on its claimants.

ALL mainstream religions believe the Earth is a Globe and that's what the topic is.  So focus 
Is it really too much effort to visualize in your head a light rolling around the middle of a plate isn't going to be "east" or "west" of anything it touches EVER?

Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2017, 07:42:43 PM »

People travel perfectly fine using a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than the continent of Africa and where Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents combined.



No one travels using a Mercator map.  A pilot leaving New York bound for Paris uses sectional charts.   Do you know what a sectional chart is?

Ships also use sectional charts.
The chart room on a ship has cabinets filled with many drawers filled with many sectional charts.
Each chart is made from projections made from the globe and covering a small enough area to minimize distortion.
The same is true for aviation sectional charts.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2017, 07:52:05 PM by geckothegeek »
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #22 on: August 08, 2017, 08:03:58 PM »
It's the one commonly accepted among the world (by a wide margin)

Religion is most commonly accepted among the world. Therefore religion is true and science is false. Burden is on you to disprove religion.

Who says that God is untestable? He exists, He does things, therefore He is testable. Once you are able to disprove God, get back to us, because the burden is on you to disprove this popular null hypothesis and not on its claimants.

ALL mainstream religions believe the Earth is a Globe and that's what the topic is.  So focus

One of the problems with some very fundamentalist religions is said to be that they determine the word "circle" as being a two-dimensional circle rather than a three-dimensional sphere and base their flat earth beliefs on this.
There is also something about it that the Hewbrew language did not have a word for sphere at the time this was written.
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2446
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #23 on: August 08, 2017, 08:50:12 PM »
Or you could watch the data as commercial airlines fly from point to point using great circle navigation.  Using proven accurate technology no less.  Or is Flight Track data only real when I use it?

I have yet to see an assessment which discounts all possible continental layout and distance configurations.

No shit, you've only seen it discount all of your possible layouts and distance configurations.  Works swimmingly on ours.

The current Flat Earth maps were not created with any attention to continental layouts or distances. They are projections of a globe to showcase a particular concept of navigation or polar layout, and are not original creations.

We have looked into this issue on a number of occasions, and the current opinions seems to be that it is impractical for us to make a map as discussed here.

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2446
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #24 on: August 08, 2017, 09:14:24 PM »
But there is no single commonly accepted religion, and nearly every single one says you cannot find a god via science. Or have you had your head in the sand for the last few decades? Also many religions don't claim all of science is false, that's something you literally just made up on the spot. Beyond that, even if it was 'science is true or religion is true' there's no such thing as a null hypothesis in religion. So such a thing wouldn't even exist.

I can't even believe I have to break it down this far, just to try and force you from weaseling out of giving a legitimate answer. Among the scientific community, the commonly accepted theory (used here in the scientific sense, and if you don't know the difference educate yourself please) is the default, the null, and what any new hypothesis must disprove, or be a more accurate fit for. At present, FE can't even put forth a model to test against, or any equations to test. It's a glorified hypotheses. Show me your FE model Tom. Or how about that equation for Electromagnetic Accelerator that you claim to have cut down. At least then we'd have something to test against and you could begin on the path to being a theory. You don't even know the number of the 'constant' in your EA calculation for fuck's sake. You demand incredible amounts of evidence, and don't even hold your own tests to the same standard.

No religion says that it is impossible to find God with science. Which one said that? If God exists or does things in any capacity then it is possible to find evidence for his existence. More people believe in God than those who do not. If you are a non-believer, that makes the burden of proof on you!

If you can lead by example on this matter and prove that God does not exist, I would appreciate it. Let me know by sending me a PM or by creating a new thread that you have disproven the existence of God. The burden of proof is on you, after all. I will then agree with your argument that the burden of proof is not on those who make claims of things beyond experience, and that it is actually based on "majority opinion". I will also reverse all of my criticisms on the concept of proving a negative, which I have shared on this forum, and immediately proceed to answering all of the "prove me wrong" threads.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2017, 11:55:24 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #25 on: August 08, 2017, 09:15:48 PM »
Or you could watch the data as commercial airlines fly from point to point using great circle navigation.  Using proven accurate technology no less.  Or is Flight Track data only real when I use it?

I have yet to see an assessment which discounts all possible continental layout and distance configurations.

No shit, you've only seen it discount all of your possible layouts and distance configurations.  Works swimmingly on ours.

The current Flat Earth maps were not created with any attention to continental layouts or distances. They are projections of a globe to showcase a particular concept of navigation or polar layout, and are not original creations.

We have looked into this issue on a number of occasions, and the current opinions seems to be that it is impractical for us to make a map as discussed here.
So you guys are ok with taking the word of one man on his experiments, but you can't trust the distances we've been given for the landmasses of the continents of the Earth and the oceans? Because that's what I'm getting out of this. The numbers for the distances across the states are easy to find. The distances for the width of Australia, Europe, NA, SA, Asia, Africa and Antarctica are easy to find, as well as the distances broken down into smaller chunks. You're telling me that we can't trust any of those distances? That you blanket refuse to use them in an effort to put together a map because...why exactly? If making a map is so hard, how did the map of the globe come about? How is it accurate at the local level for everyone? Where did the distances for the Rand McNally Road Atlas come from? Your claim boils down to "We can't make a map because all the people who created maps and charted distances that are available online are part of the Round Earth conspiracy!!!!1!1!!"

Once again your post contribution in that thread seems to be "Disprove me because that's what you have to do!" rather than understanding it's on you to provide the proof. If you can't make a map that works with known distances (hopefully/potentially corroborated via flight times) you don't have a theory. You have a hypothesis, and a rather poor one at that.

EDIT: I had a second post to address more, but comp crashed and I don't have time to retype it right now. Later if things aren't discussed/addressed more by others before then.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2017, 09:28:01 PM by Curious Squirrel »
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2446
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #26 on: August 08, 2017, 09:30:43 PM »
So you guys are ok with taking the word of one man on his experiments, but you can't trust the distances we've been given for the landmasses of the continents of the Earth and the oceans? Because that's what I'm getting out of this. The numbers for the distances across the states are easy to find. The distances for the width of Australia, Europe, NA, SA, Asia, Africa and Antarctica are easy to find, as well as the distances broken down into smaller chunks. You're telling me that we can't trust any of those distances? That you blanket refuse to use them in an effort to put together a map because...why exactly? If making a map is so hard, how did the map of the globe come about? How is it accurate at the local level for everyone? Where did the distances for the Rand McNally Road Atlas come from? Your claim boils down to "We can't make a map because all the people who created maps and charted distances that are available online are part of the Round Earth conspiracy!!!!1!1!!"

Once again your post contribution in that thread seems to be "Disprove me because that's what you have to do!" rather than understanding it's on you to provide the proof. If you can't make a map that works with known distances (hopefully/potentially corroborated via flight times) you don't have a theory. You have a hypothesis, and a rather poor one at that.

The issue is that no one in the society will give serious consideration to the notion of simply "looking up" distances. Questions will arise on whether it was calculated on the presumption of a globe, and flight logs will be necessary. Then there is a matter that planes do not make direct straight line paths to their destinations, will regularly use jet streams, be delayed, etc.

It is also not a given that taking a flight from location A to location B tells us the distance between those two points based on the time of arrival. One might theorize that an aircraft has a cruising speed of so and so miles per hour, but how was that calculated? Based on assumed Round Earth distances when the plane made a test flight to a "known" location in its development?

As you can see, the matter is all a little more complicated than just needing to Google distances.

*

Offline Merkava

  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Masterdebater
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #27 on: August 08, 2017, 09:40:23 PM »
So you guys are ok with taking the word of one man on his experiments, but you can't trust the distances we've been given for the landmasses of the continents of the Earth and the oceans? Because that's what I'm getting out of this. The numbers for the distances across the states are easy to find. The distances for the width of Australia, Europe, NA, SA, Asia, Africa and Antarctica are easy to find, as well as the distances broken down into smaller chunks. You're telling me that we can't trust any of those distances? That you blanket refuse to use them in an effort to put together a map because...why exactly? If making a map is so hard, how did the map of the globe come about? How is it accurate at the local level for everyone? Where did the distances for the Rand McNally Road Atlas come from? Your claim boils down to "We can't make a map because all the people who created maps and charted distances that are available online are part of the Round Earth conspiracy!!!!1!1!!"

Once again your post contribution in that thread seems to be "Disprove me because that's what you have to do!" rather than understanding it's on you to provide the proof. If you can't make a map that works with known distances (hopefully/potentially corroborated via flight times) you don't have a theory. You have a hypothesis, and a rather poor one at that.

The issue is that no one in the society will give serious consideration to the notion of simply "looking up" distances. Questions will arise on whether it was calculated on the presumption of a globe, and flight logs will be necessary. Then there is a matter that planes do not make direct straight line paths to their destinations, will regularly use jet streams, be delayed, etc.

It is also not a given that taking a flight from location A to location B tells us the distance between those two points based on the time of arrival. One might theorize that an aircraft has a cruising speed of so and so miles per hour, but how was that calculated? Based on assumed Round Earth distances when the plane made a test flight to a "known" location in its development?

As you can see, the matter is all a little more complicated than just needing to Google distances.

FFS Why don't you get together and buy a decent theodolite and just start checking near you?  We have to prove you wrong, but you have no map, no math, no theory, nothing.  Don't you get it?  When you can't come up with a single equation to predict sunrises, sunsets, elevations, eclipses etc......   and WE CAN EVERYDAY, what's left to check?  I can't prove anything wrong you can't even come up with.©
Is it really too much effort to visualize in your head a light rolling around the middle of a plate isn't going to be "east" or "west" of anything it touches EVER?

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2446
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #28 on: August 08, 2017, 10:12:26 PM »
FFS Why don't you get together and buy a decent theodolite and just start checking near you?  We have to prove you wrong, but you have no map, no math, no theory, nothing.  Don't you get it?  When you can't come up with a single equation to predict sunrises, sunsets, elevations, eclipses etc......   and WE CAN EVERYDAY, what's left to check?  I can't prove anything wrong you can't even come up with.©

There is a lack of funding to develop such things. Our yearly budget is $0 while Round Earth Theory has had hundreds of years and near endless funding.

Much of our time is dedicated to educating the public that Round Earth Theory isn't as certain as it seems, such as the eclipses and planet predictions being based on using pattern recognition on historic tables of past observations, and not actually predicted in a geometric sense.

Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #29 on: August 08, 2017, 10:28:36 PM »
So you guys are ok with taking the word of one man on his experiments, but you can't trust the distances we've been given for the landmasses of the continents of the Earth and the oceans? Because that's what I'm getting out of this. The numbers for the distances across the states are easy to find. The distances for the width of Australia, Europe, NA, SA, Asia, Africa and Antarctica are easy to find, as well as the distances broken down into smaller chunks. You're telling me that we can't trust any of those distances? That you blanket refuse to use them in an effort to put together a map because...why exactly? If making a map is so hard, how did the map of the globe come about? How is it accurate at the local level for everyone? Where did the distances for the Rand McNally Road Atlas come from? Your claim boils down to "We can't make a map because all the people who created maps and charted distances that are available online are part of the Round Earth conspiracy!!!!1!1!!"

Once again your post contribution in that thread seems to be "Disprove me because that's what you have to do!" rather than understanding it's on you to provide the proof. If you can't make a map that works with known distances (hopefully/potentially corroborated via flight times) you don't have a theory. You have a hypothesis, and a rather poor one at that.

The issue is that no one in the society will give serious consideration to the notion of simply "looking up" distances. Questions will arise on whether it was calculated on the presumption of a globe, and flight logs will be necessary. Then there is a matter that planes do not make direct straight line paths to their destinations, will regularly use jet streams, be delayed, etc.

It is also not a given that taking a flight from location A to location B tells us the distance between those two points based on the time of arrival. One might theorize that an aircraft has a cruising speed of so and so miles per hour, but how was that calculated? Based on assumed Round Earth distances when the plane made a test flight to a "known" location in its development?

As you can see, the matter is all a little more complicated than just needing to Google distances.
If you had the funds how would you measure distances?

*

Offline Merkava

  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Masterdebater
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #30 on: August 08, 2017, 11:40:30 PM »
FFS Why don't you get together and buy a decent theodolite and just start checking near you?  We have to prove you wrong, but you have no map, no math, no theory, nothing.  Don't you get it?  When you can't come up with a single equation to predict sunrises, sunsets, elevations, eclipses etc......   and WE CAN EVERYDAY, what's left to check?  I can't prove anything wrong you can't even come up with.©

There is a lack of funding to develop such things. Our yearly budget is $0 while Round Earth Theory has had hundreds of years and near endless funding.

Much of our time is dedicated to educating the public that Round Earth Theory isn't as certain as it seems, such as the eclipses and planet predictions being based on using pattern recognition on historic tables of past observations, and not actually predicted in a geometric sense.

Umm, Bullshit.  All the equations are on wikipedia and use Radians and Pi for some reason?  and a theodolite: https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=DChcSEwjY9J6458jVAhXcCCoKHeUWCcEYABABGgJ0bQ&sig=AOD64_0r70GMhLywOZTA31X5HQf7BJMoug&ctype=5&q=&ved=0ahUKEwj0xJi458jVAhWn5lQKHVfQAQkQpysICA&adurl=

$400
Is it really too much effort to visualize in your head a light rolling around the middle of a plate isn't going to be "east" or "west" of anything it touches EVER?

Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #31 on: August 08, 2017, 11:41:57 PM »
FFS Why don't you get together and buy a decent theodolite and just start checking near you?  We have to prove you wrong, but you have no map, no math, no theory, nothing.  Don't you get it?  When you can't come up with a single equation to predict sunrises, sunsets, elevations, eclipses etc......   and WE CAN EVERYDAY, what's left to check?  I can't prove anything wrong you can't even come up with.©

There is a lack of funding to develop such things. Our yearly budget is $0 while Round Earth Theory has had hundreds of years and near endless funding.

Much of our time is dedicated to educating the public that Round Earth Theory isn't as certain as it seems, such as the eclipses and planet predictions being based on using pattern recognition on historic tables of past observations, and not actually predicted in a geometric sense.
Your 'yearly budget' is whatever you guys put into it, which if you actually care about it and making it a valid theory instead of a nonsense hypothesis should be greater than $0.

The timing of the eclipses is corroborated by historic patterns, and where they will be visible is entirely based upon two equations developed within the last 50 years. We've shown that to you, that's the facts and they don't care if you believe them or not.

So you guys are ok with taking the word of one man on his experiments, but you can't trust the distances we've been given for the landmasses of the continents of the Earth and the oceans? Because that's what I'm getting out of this. The numbers for the distances across the states are easy to find. The distances for the width of Australia, Europe, NA, SA, Asia, Africa and Antarctica are easy to find, as well as the distances broken down into smaller chunks. You're telling me that we can't trust any of those distances? That you blanket refuse to use them in an effort to put together a map because...why exactly? If making a map is so hard, how did the map of the globe come about? How is it accurate at the local level for everyone? Where did the distances for the Rand McNally Road Atlas come from? Your claim boils down to "We can't make a map because all the people who created maps and charted distances that are available online are part of the Round Earth conspiracy!!!!1!1!!"

Once again your post contribution in that thread seems to be "Disprove me because that's what you have to do!" rather than understanding it's on you to provide the proof. If you can't make a map that works with known distances (hopefully/potentially corroborated via flight times) you don't have a theory. You have a hypothesis, and a rather poor one at that.

The issue is that no one in the society will give serious consideration to the notion of simply "looking up" distances. Questions will arise on whether it was calculated on the presumption of a globe, and flight logs will be necessary. Then there is a matter that planes do not make direct straight line paths to their destinations, will regularly use jet streams, be delayed, etc.

It is also not a given that taking a flight from location A to location B tells us the distance between those two points based on the time of arrival. One might theorize that an aircraft has a cruising speed of so and so miles per hour, but how was that calculated? Based on assumed Round Earth distances when the plane made a test flight to a "known" location in its development?

As you can see, the matter is all a little more complicated than just needing to Google distances.
Then take some time and corroborate smaller distances. If you look at a Road Atlas or something, pick two points and travel between them. If your results show the same as given for the Atlas, you've validated for yourself the accuracy of that map. Do that with others, and compare. Work with other members of those who believe in FE, or find those willing to assist in this manner (assuming you'll trust them, which seems to be something you can't do) to help verify the accuracy. Verify enough maps and bam. You've got working, known distances to be using, and comparing to what's listed online. Best of all the only cost is a few days of many peoples time, and the cost of a tank of gas for each. "Many hands make light work."

But there is no single commonly accepted religion, and nearly every single one says you cannot find a god via science. Or have you had your head in the sand for the last few decades? Also many religions don't claim all of science is false, that's something you literally just made up on the spot. Beyond that, even if it was 'science is true or religion is true' there's no such thing as a null hypothesis in religion. So such a thing wouldn't even exist.

I can't even believe I have to break it down this far, just to try and force you from weaseling out of giving a legitimate answer. Among the scientific community, the commonly accepted theory (used here in the scientific sense, and if you don't know the difference educate yourself please) is the default, the null, and what any new hypothesis must disprove, or be a more accurate fit for. At present, FE can't even put forth a model to test against, or any equations to test. It's a glorified hypotheses. Show me your FE model Tom. Or how about that equation for Electromagnetic Accelerator that you claim to have cut down. At least then we'd have something to test against and you could begin on the path to being a theory. You don't even know the number of the 'constant' in your EA calculation for fuck's sake. You demand incredible amounts of evidence, and don't even hold your own tests to the same standard.

No religion says that it is impossible to find God with science. Which one said that? If God exists or does things in any capacity then it is possible to find evidence for his existence. More people believe in God than those who do not. If you are a non-believer, that makes the burden of proof on you!

If you can lead by example on this matter and prove that God does not exist let me know by sending me a PM or by creating a new thread that you have disproven God. I will then agree with your argument that the burden of proof is not on those who make claims of things beyond experience, and that it is actually based on "majority opinion". I will also reverse all of my criticisms on the concept of proving a negative, which I have shared on this forum, and immediately proceed to answering all of the "prove me wrong" threads.

You continue to either not understand or ignore the actual thrust of my argument. Now, I'll admit looking I don't see an official stance from any that God cannot be found with science (at least recently, and digging back further is proving difficult for some reason) but it IS a stance of a not insignificant amount of believers from what I'm seeing. But really, that's neither here nor there.

Again, this isn't about how you feel, or majority in other fields. This is about science, where the commonly accepted theory is the default. The one that has to be disproven. RE did this a few thousand years ago. Now FE is in that position, and it has much larger hurdles to overcome because of scientific advancement. Religion and god are not comparable in this field. RE and FE are not yes/no or existent/nonexistent sides of a coin. They are Option A or Option B. That is why god and religion have no place and can't be compared to this. One side isn't proving or claiming a negative, one side is presenting the arguments held as truth/correct by the scientific community, and the other is attempting to say those are wrong. IN SCIENCE that means the latter have the burden of proof. I don't know how to make that any more clear. This is how the process works, this is how we've had breakthroughs and discoveries for many years now. Scientific progress is about showing how something currently thought correct is incorrect, or only correct to a point. Right now, science says RE is correct. That makes the burden on FE to disprove RE and create a working replacement. Ye god I hope this gets it through to you and you don't just ignore it like you've done multiple times now, but my hopes are low.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2446
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #32 on: August 09, 2017, 11:57:39 AM »
Your 'yearly budget' is whatever you guys put into it, which if you actually care about it and making it a valid theory instead of a nonsense hypothesis should be greater than $0.

The timing of the eclipses is corroborated by historic patterns, and where they will be visible is entirely based upon two equations developed within the last 50 years. We've shown that to you, that's the facts and they don't care if you believe them or not.

You guys keep claiming that, but have been unable to provide a model and NASA and various astronomy websites explicitly state on their eclipse predicting websites that they are using cycle charts. This is a topic deserving of its own thread if you would like to discuss further.

Quote
Then take some time and corroborate smaller distances. If you look at a Road Atlas or something, pick two points and travel between them. If your results show the same as given for the Atlas, you've validated for yourself the accuracy of that map. Do that with others, and compare. Work with other members of those who believe in FE, or find those willing to assist in this manner (assuming you'll trust them, which seems to be something you can't do) to help verify the accuracy. Verify enough maps and bam. You've got working, known distances to be using, and comparing to what's listed online. Best of all the only cost is a few days of many peoples time, and the cost of a tank of gas for each. "Many hands make light work."

That sounds like a nice project to do. We will add it to the list. Unfortunately, time is money, and resources are limited. It is a shame that people like you are so quick to demand experiments or projects be performed but refuse to investigate and contribute for yourselves.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2017, 12:05:59 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2446
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #33 on: August 09, 2017, 12:06:43 PM »
Quote from: Curious Squirrel
You continue to either not understand or ignore the actual thrust of my argument. Now, I'll admit looking I don't see an official stance from any that God cannot be found with science (at least recently, and digging back further is proving difficult for some reason) but it IS a stance of a not insignificant amount of believers from what I'm seeing. But really, that's neither here nor there.

Again, this isn't about how you feel, or majority in other fields. This is about science, where the commonly accepted theory is the default. The one that has to be disproven. RE did this a few thousand years ago. Now FE is in that position, and it has much larger hurdles to overcome because of scientific advancement. Religion and god are not comparable in this field. RE and FE are not yes/no or existent/nonexistent sides of a coin. They are Option A or Option B. That is why god and religion have no place and can't be compared to this. One side isn't proving or claiming a negative, one side is presenting the arguments held as truth/correct by the scientific community, and the other is attempting to say those are wrong. IN SCIENCE that means the latter have the burden of proof. I don't know how to make that any more clear. This is how the process works, this is how we've had breakthroughs and discoveries for many years now. Scientific progress is about showing how something currently thought correct is incorrect, or only correct to a point. Right now, science says RE is correct. That makes the burden on FE to disprove RE and create a working replacement. Ye god I hope this gets it through to you and you don't just ignore it like you've done multiple times now, but my hopes are low.
[/quote

The existence of a God who created and controls the universe is a scientific concept. How is it purely a religious concept? Religion is making a direct claim about how the universe operates. There are MORE PEOPLE who believe in the existence of God than not, who say that the universe operates in this way. That means that the burden of proof is on you.

If you are unable to cope with the responsibility of disproving God, that just means that you are clearly wrong, and a coward, for walking away from your burden of proving a negative, and we have nothing further to discuss.

Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #34 on: August 09, 2017, 12:57:06 PM »
Quote from: Curious Squirrel
You continue to either not understand or ignore the actual thrust of my argument. Now, I'll admit looking I don't see an official stance from any that God cannot be found with science (at least recently, and digging back further is proving difficult for some reason) but it IS a stance of a not insignificant amount of believers from what I'm seeing. But really, that's neither here nor there.

Again, this isn't about how you feel, or majority in other fields. This is about science, where the commonly accepted theory is the default. The one that has to be disproven. RE did this a few thousand years ago. Now FE is in that position, and it has much larger hurdles to overcome because of scientific advancement. Religion and god are not comparable in this field. RE and FE are not yes/no or existent/nonexistent sides of a coin. They are Option A or Option B. That is why god and religion have no place and can't be compared to this. One side isn't proving or claiming a negative, one side is presenting the arguments held as truth/correct by the scientific community, and the other is attempting to say those are wrong. IN SCIENCE that means the latter have the burden of proof. I don't know how to make that any more clear. This is how the process works, this is how we've had breakthroughs and discoveries for many years now. Scientific progress is about showing how something currently thought correct is incorrect, or only correct to a point. Right now, science says RE is correct. That makes the burden on FE to disprove RE and create a working replacement. Ye god I hope this gets it through to you and you don't just ignore it like you've done multiple times now, but my hopes are low.
[/quote

The existence of a God who created and controls the universe is a scientific concept. How is it purely a religious concept? Religion is making a direct claim about how the universe operates. There are MORE PEOPLE who believe in the existence of God than not, who say that the universe operates in this way. That means that the burden of proof is on you.

If you are unable to cope with the responsibility of disproving God, that just means that you are clearly wrong, and a coward, for walking away from your burden of proving a negative, and we have nothing further to discuss.
Wow, combining both a personal attack, with reductio ad absurdum. I'm mildly impressed. Not to mention you completely skip over the reasoning behind my point. Bravo Tom, bravo. A new low even for you. You're right, if you can't understand how the two are different, and the existence of god (or not) doesn't compare from a scientific standpoint to FE vs RE, then we don't have anything further to discuss. You are clearly more interested in sticking your fingers in your ears (not reading and responding to the actual points being made) than you are in a discussion about what is the scientific null in this scenario. All you have is this god argument you keep going back to, when it's very foundation is different due to being an existence debate, NOT an option debate. God exists vs. god does not exist, have very different requirements and issues than FE vs RE, and the fact you continue to ignore that so you can pound your chest about this god thing tells me you aren't interested in that. Which is fine, but at least be honest that you don't care about the difference rather than pretending there isn't one. At least then I know to stop trying to educate you on it.

Your 'yearly budget' is whatever you guys put into it, which if you actually care about it and making it a valid theory instead of a nonsense hypothesis should be greater than $0.

The timing of the eclipses is corroborated by historic patterns, and where they will be visible is entirely based upon two equations developed within the last 50 years. We've shown that to you, that's the facts and they don't care if you believe them or not.

You guys keep claiming that, but have been unable to provide a model and NASA and various astronomy websites explicitly state on their eclipse predicting websites that they are using cycle charts. This is a topic deserving of its own thread if you would like to discuss further.

You were given a model and information on it in another thread. That you chose to ignore the given model, and misread the information given is not my fault.

Then take some time and corroborate smaller distances. If you look at a Road Atlas or something, pick two points and travel between them. If your results show the same as given for the Atlas, you've validated for yourself the accuracy of that map. Do that with others, and compare. Work with other members of those who believe in FE, or find those willing to assist in this manner (assuming you'll trust them, which seems to be something you can't do) to help verify the accuracy. Verify enough maps and bam. You've got working, known distances to be using, and comparing to what's listed online. Best of all the only cost is a few days of many peoples time, and the cost of a tank of gas for each. "Many hands make light work."

That sounds like a nice project to do. We will add it to the list. Unfortunately, time is money, and resources are limited. It is a shame that people like you are so quick to demand experiments or projects be performed but refuse to investigate and contribute for yourselves.
Do you see me saying I wouldn't be up for assisting with this? I just figured you wouldn't ever trust anything I or another RE'er had to say considering you can't seem to even trust our word about observing sun rise and set times. How would this be any different? Actually, take that back partly. I would LOVE to assist with this if you would accept my data, but I just remembered my car odometer doesn't work (broken wire connection so it's tracking distances, but the display doesn't light up to be read). But that doesn't mean there wouldn't be others up for it. It's just a question of do you trust people who don't believe in a FE, considering that seems to be an issue for you in other threads.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #35 on: August 09, 2017, 02:30:18 PM »
The existence of a God who created and controls the universe is a scientific concept. How is it purely a religious concept? Religion is making a direct claim about how the universe operates. There are MORE PEOPLE who believe in the existence of God than not, who say that the universe operates in this way. That means that the burden of proof is on you.

While it's true that there are fewer atheists in the world than theists - atheism is larger by far than any single religion in the world.   Agnosticism is larger still than that...but it's hard to measure the degree of doubt in the minds of theists.

So only if you're prepared to lump together a bunch of people with wildly divergent ideas about god or gods-plural can you claim that there is a numerical majority for any particular set of beliefs.

Quote
If you are unable to cope with the responsibility of disproving God, that just means that you are clearly wrong, and a coward, for walking away from your burden of proving a negative, and we have nothing further to discuss.

No - it does not.  It's not cowardice.

The people who "invented" these religions (sometime in the very dim and distant past) were very clever.   They set up the 'rules' of the game so that they could never be disproven.   If you want to kick back and relax "praying to the gods" while the rest of your tribe go out hunter-gathering for 10 hours a day - then you'd better figure out a way for you to NEVER be wrong in what you say...so...um..."God can do anything - and he doesn't have to explain why!"

By taking a rough definition of a "god" as:  "A being who is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent" - you guarantee that god(s) cannot possibly be disproven by any means whatever.   If someone were to come up with an experiment that firmly and forever disproved the existence of any god(s) - then theists would simply come back and say "God wishes everyone to rely on faith and not concrete evidence - so of course he made your experiment come out the way it did."....and our hypothetical experimenter would have no come-back because "omnipotence" means that the god could make the experiment come out any way he/she/it wanted...and "omniscience" means that we can't even surprise this god by doing the experiment without being noticed...we can't even do the experiment far enough away from the gods to prevent them from messing with it because they are "omnipresent"....very clever!

So the "God hypothesis" is impossible to disprove - it was designed that way.   It's "unfalsifiable" - so use a science term.

Even logical arguments of the form "Can God create a rock that's so heavy he can't lift it?" or "Can God create a mathematical theorem that even he can't prove?" can be danced around by the clergy.  "He can do whatever he wants."...so much for Godel's incompleteness theorem, Quantum uncertainty, Chaos theory and Heisenburg's uncertainty principle!

In the case of unfalsifiable hypotheses, we can never know the answer...it's "Russells' Teapot" all over again.

In such cases, we cannot simply give up on life and not use the information we have - so the fallback position is "Occam's Razor" - which has proven to be a useful (if not entirely reliable) tool for humanity in the past.   It says (broadly) that the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one...and in almost every case, that's true.

The simplest explanation is that there are no gods.   This fits daily facts very well - and if we operate on those principles - the predictions we make about the universe turn out to be surprisingly accurate an overwhelming majority of the time.

But yes - STRICTLY SPEAKING, nobody should be an atheist - we should (logically) all be agnostics.    However, these two terms refer to a mental state - and those who are atheists are as certain as it is possible to be (given unfalsifiability and Occam's Razor) that there is no god - and that's "good enough" for them to say "I believe there is no god (and the odds that I'm wrong are vanishingly small)."

*

Offline Merkava

  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Masterdebater
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #36 on: August 09, 2017, 06:48:49 PM »
Quote from: Curious Squirrel
You continue to either not understand or ignore the actual thrust of my argument. Now, I'll admit looking I don't see an official stance from any that God cannot be found with science (at least recently, and digging back further is proving difficult for some reason) but it IS a stance of a not insignificant amount of believers from what I'm seeing. But really, that's neither here nor there.

Again, this isn't about how you feel, or majority in other fields. This is about science, where the commonly accepted theory is the default. The one that has to be disproven. RE did this a few thousand years ago. Now FE is in that position, and it has much larger hurdles to overcome because of scientific advancement. Religion and god are not comparable in this field. RE and FE are not yes/no or existent/nonexistent sides of a coin. They are Option A or Option B. That is why god and religion have no place and can't be compared to this. One side isn't proving or claiming a negative, one side is presenting the arguments held as truth/correct by the scientific community, and the other is attempting to say those are wrong. IN SCIENCE that means the latter have the burden of proof. I don't know how to make that any more clear. This is how the process works, this is how we've had breakthroughs and discoveries for many years now. Scientific progress is about showing how something currently thought correct is incorrect, or only correct to a point. Right now, science says RE is correct. That makes the burden on FE to disprove RE and create a working replacement. Ye god I hope this gets it through to you and you don't just ignore it like you've done multiple times now, but my hopes are low.
[/quote

The existence of a God who created and controls the universe is a scientific concept. How is it purely a religious concept? Religion is making a direct claim about how the universe operates. There are MORE PEOPLE who believe in the existence of God than not, who say that the universe operates in this way. That means that the burden of proof is on you.

If you are unable to cope with the responsibility of disproving God, that just means that you are clearly wrong, and a coward, for walking away from your burden of proving a negative, and we have nothing further to discuss.

Religion implies super natural in most definitions, I personally feel whatever your paradigm is, is your religion.  As I said in my other post God would be outside the laws and physics of this universe by definition.  He is no more subject to them than a programmer is to a simulation he wrote.  and still has nothing to do with any of this.

Are you taking the position you have no responsibility to back up any claims or assertions you make because "we" haven't disproved God?  It's preposterous.  and again so telling.  No one on our side would back away from explaining in detail as best they were able ANY "If the Earth is round then how come X......?"  You are running down the nuttiest debating tactic I have ever seen to avoid having to come up with any reasonable answer for anything.  Take all your theories and provide a single formula (based on your theories, not RE) that can be used to predict or explain anything we ALREADY can, you won't.  You haven't even checked what direction the sun is rising at your own location.  I'll give you a hint, it's getting closer and closer to due East.
Is it really too much effort to visualize in your head a light rolling around the middle of a plate isn't going to be "east" or "west" of anything it touches EVER?

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2446
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #37 on: August 09, 2017, 07:53:58 PM »
Religion implies super natural in most definitions

The people who believe in God don't think that their beliefs are "super natural" or "para-normal. They would describe it as very natural and normal. Those people outnumber you. Therefore the burden of proof is to prove them wrong. You cannot simply redefine their beliefs.

Quote
No one on our side would back away from explaining in detail as best they were able ANY "If the Earth is round then how come X......?"

This is incorrect. There are several questions you back away from and cannot explain. For instance, the full moon should be impossible on a Round Earth, but the topic is generally avoided and excuses are given when brought up.

Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #38 on: August 09, 2017, 08:04:48 PM »
Religion implies super natural in most definitions

The people who believe in God don't think that their beliefs are "super natural" or "para-normal. They would describe it as very natural and normal. Those people outnumber you. Therefore the burden of proof is to prove them wrong. You cannot simply redefine their beliefs.

Quote
No one on our side would back away from explaining in detail as best they were able ANY "If the Earth is round then how come X......?"

This is incorrect. There are several questions you back away from and cannot explain. For instance, the full moon should be impossible on a Round Earth, but the topic is generally avoided and excuses are given when brought up.
You really wanna go there with the moon when FE has squat? Know what, challenge accepted. I've gotta take care of something, but soon as I'm back I'll be tackling this and show you why that illustration is so terribly wrong.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #39 on: August 09, 2017, 09:09:37 PM »
Ok, so first off we need to get a better idea of the sizes and distances involved here, because that image just doesn't cut it at all. Under RE this image is a to scale representation of Earth and the moon for sizes and distances. This Earth is about 1/8 inches in diameter (actual diameter is about 8,000 miles) and the moon is 3.75 inches away (actual distance is about 240,000 miles away) with a diameter of about 1/32 of an inch (actual diameter of about 2,000 miles). Using this same scale, the sun would have to be over 1 foot in diameter (actual size diameter is about 864,000 miles) and the center would be about 121 feet from the center of our Earth circle. These distances are very hard to comprehend and deal with, and it's why scale images showing all three barely exist.

But, these give us some very useful numbers. With the diameter of the Earth, and the distance to the moon, we've got everything we need to create a triangle! This will give us the angle of the largest difference between two sides of the Earth, which will tell us how much difference each side should actually expect to see in their viewing angle of the moon. Very helpfully you even used an angle calculator earlier on another thread, so let's see what we get when we plug things into this, shall we? I'll use the same notation as your calculator so you can follow along.

Side lengths (Used M since your calculator doesn't have an option for miles, but using the same numbers means we won't change the angle results)
side a: 8,000 (Diameter of Earth representing the two people on either side of it.)
side b: 240,000 (Distance to the moon for person C)
side c: 240,000 (Distance to the moon for person B)

Plug these in and we get
angle A: 1.90995 °
angle B: 89.045 °
angle C: 89.045 °

So that means, angle of viewing difference between two observers is only about 2° at the outside. I would note even placing the moon at a 90° angle to one of the observers still leaves us with that same angle. What does all this mean?

Firstly, because of the size of the sun, the Umbra and Penumbra cast by the Earth are both quite small. In fact the Earth's Umbra by the time it reaches the moon (due in part to light curving through the atmosphere) doesn't actually block out the moon fully. But even in the images created by intikan, the moon at a full 90° angle to one side of the Earth, the other side will only see a difference of just less than 2° to one side. Which isn't all that discernible to the human eye, especially considering the shifting the moon goes under on it's own. I'd be more than happy to work on delving more into this issue, but this should provide a good foundation.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work