981

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Stand up proof

« on: May 11, 2018, 09:18:01 AM »

The proof in the OP is based on the concept of sitting down and standing up at the shoreline. Hardly conclusive.

It's very conclusive. It shows a simple observation that requires very little equipment or background assumptions, can show an awful lot. The geometry is fascinating. Please show why that isn't conclusive.

As I noted in another comment, your interest, and the interest of the society, should be in persuading people like me of the evidence for your claims. Haven't seen any. Everything I have seen so far consists in immediately dismissing any contrary evidence whatever, however persuasive.

If your evidence is so easily dismissed, then maybe you should come up with better evidence.

You ignored my first point. It is for you to persuade me. And you haven't shown me why the evidence is so easily dismissed. Please explain

[edit] Also, it is a logical fallacy that if you immediately dismisses p, then p is easily dismissed. Suppose I show you a proof of 7+5=12, and you immediately dismiss it. Does it follow that the mathematical proof is 'easily dismissed'?

982

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distances between cities

« on: May 11, 2018, 09:14:26 AM »

.. It is possible to create a reasoned argument that is difficult to dispute..

I  have given a closely reasoned argument, as follows:

1. I showed how reported flight distances could not be made consistent with a flat projection. You objected that the existing projection might not be the right one, but I replied that my argument applied to any flat projection. You seem to have accepted this, but moved on, objecting that the reported flight times were incorrect.

2. To the objection that reported flight times might not reflect true distance, I provided an X-Y graph showing the strong correlation between one method of measurement (GCD) and another (reported flight times).

You need to reply to this reasoning.

983

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distances between cities

« on: May 11, 2018, 09:00:06 AM »

The distances used in the OP don't come from doppler radar measurements. What does that topic have to do with this discussion?

Agree, but you need to address the correlation objection. See the chart above. Science confirms its results by comparing evidence from different sources.

984

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about flight times

« on: May 11, 2018, 08:19:32 AM »

Tom, would you accept evidence based on flight times? Time can be measured using an ordinary watch, and the measurement is independent of distance or the coordinate system.

And ditto to the question above. If the coordinate systems are inaccurate are they inaccurate measuring distance or are they inaccurate measuring time or are they inaccurate measuring both?

Flight times will not work without knowing how fast each plane was going. A plane flying 100 MPH will take 6 hours to fly a 600 mile distance while a plane flying 600 MPH will take just 1 hour. If you only looked at the flight times they could vary wildly and show no representation. In my OP i inferred that both planes were traveling the same speed. All someone has to do is that that the distance is wrong and then also the speed is wrong.

Note my other comments on the flight distance thread, and the chart correlating great circle lines with flight times. If speeds were erratic, this would show up on the chart.

985

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Stand up proof

« on: May 11, 2018, 07:45:29 AM »

The proof in the OP is based on the concept of sitting down and standing up at the shoreline. Hardly conclusive.

It's very conclusive. It shows a simple observation that requires very little equipment or background assumptions, can show an awful lot. The geometry is fascinating. Please show why that isn't conclusive.

As I noted in another comment, your interest, and the interest of the society, should be in persuading people like me of the evidence for your claims. Haven't seen any. Everything I have seen so far consists in immediately dismissing any contrary evidence whatever, however persuasive.

986

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Testable difference between FE and RE

« on: May 11, 2018, 07:41:37 AM »

I'm only here as an act of service and education for this society. Why would the authors of those works want to spend all of their time talking to you about the same things day after day, speaking to one noob after another, rehashing the same discussions over and over, when they could be doing something more productive with their lives, or for the cause?

Isn't the purpose of the society to persuade people like me of your belief system? I am an educated person with published work, and I could help a lot with your cause, if only you were able to persuade me. You haven't, so far, but happy to listen.

987

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distances between cities

« on: May 11, 2018, 07:32:22 AM »

And here Tom is once again refusing to believe things which show him to be wrong.
 

I have only been here 24 hours, but I looked at some older threads and I admit there does appear to be a pattern. Now this relates to the question of irrationality, which I raised in a separate thread. Is ignoring contrary evidence itself evidence of irrationality? Irrationality is maintaining contrary patterns of belief. So ignoring evidence does not necessarily entail irrationality. If you haven’t seen the evidence, you haven’t acquired a contrary belief.

OTOH, why is the person ignoring the evidence? If they felt it was easily refuted, they would refute it immediately. The fact that they don’t, suggests that they consciously or unconsciously accept the evidence.  There is the famous story (possibly apocryphal) of the man who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope, for fear that it might confirm a theory he did not want to believe.

I shall persist a bit longer. My goal is to understand why FEers maintain their belief system, in the face of what appears to be massive contrary evidence. Note I haven’t considered any evidence that requires complex scientific instrumentation, or accepting the statements of the scientific establishment. Just people looking at their watches at airports, plotting reported flight times on flat paper, etc.

988

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distances between cities

« on: May 11, 2018, 05:50:19 AM »

This sounds like a big project to put together. Get to it.

Where does the burden of proof lie?

In any case, you ignored the information in this chart. See also https://creation.com/a-direct-test-of-the-flat-earth-model-flight-times



This uses a standard scientific methodology of taking two different and independent data sets that purport to measure the same thing, and compares them. In this case, (1) reported flight times, and (2) reported great circle distances.

If, as you suggest, there is a significant error in aircraft speed, caused by delays or change in route etc, this would show up in the correlation. The onus of proof is now on you to explain this in a way that is consistent with FE.

989

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distances between cities

« on: May 11, 2018, 05:49:25 AM »

Here is your quote tom

Did you have anything to add beyond quoting a block of text? If not, don't bother replying. Warned.

The quote was relevant to my previous post, so i believe it was warranted.

What i maybe should have said was

Here is your quote tom, where you agreed to accept that radar was an acceptable m,ethos of determining speed, and therefore would be acceptable as a method of validating our equipment, and is relevant to the thread.

The method we use for verifying our equipment is based on Doppler radar, and it therefore of a value to this discussion.

This was obvious, I don't know why you were warned.

990

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distances between cities

« on: May 10, 2018, 10:14:31 PM »

In fact here is an excellent site https://creation.com/a-direct-test-of-the-flat-earth-model-flight-times which compares flight times with the conventionally calculated distances. Note the argument that commercial airlines would not waste fuel.

PS I notice that the site ‘obtained a map from the Flat Earth Society website’. My argument bypasses that need. If we agree that the flight times are roughly consistent with the ‘great circle’ distance of spherical-earth theory, the challenge is to represent those distances on a flat piece of paper.

PPS A neat correlation chart of flight time and distance.

991

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distances between cities

« on: May 10, 2018, 10:09:27 PM »

In fact I wrote earlier:

The advantage of flight times is that many people travel by air, ordinary people who don’t necessarily work for government agencies. Time is not the same as distance, but the FE theory would then require that airlines fly slower or faster in order to conform to the FE model. But (a) what incentive would commercial airlines have and (b) it’s actually very difficult, if not impossible, to determine the required aircraft speed for each route. I.e. if the earth were flat, air traffic controllers or pilots would have to work out precisely what speeds to fly in order to make it seem that the earth was round. Why would they bother? Why would any commercial company do that? How would it even be possible?

This addresses the speed/time objection. If the distances implied by the time are inaccurate because of changes in speed, why are they consistently inaccurate, i.e. consistent with RE but not FE. The only explanation would be a concerted – and very difficult – effort by commercial organisations to dupe the public.

992

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distances between cities

« on: May 10, 2018, 10:01:09 PM »

Figures were posted that supposedly proves us wrong. You are expected to show how that figure was generated.

The question "how were those figures generated?" is basic information that you should be expected to know.

What reasoning is there for anyone to accept those numbers as a certain truth if you cannot explain or show where they come from?

You don't appear to read posts very carefully. I started with the assumption that the distances were correct, and I showed that they couldn't be represented on a flat piece of paper. I said that if FE agree with it couldn't we could move to those assumptions.

[edit] I specifically said 'If you want to challenge the distances themselves, i.e. the data source, the argument can move on.'

More later, bedtime.

993

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distances between cities

« on: May 10, 2018, 09:45:14 PM »

My challenge to any Flat Earther is to take those distances and represent them in any way on a piece of paper. This requires no reference to any existing map. Pretend we haven't seen any map of the earth at all, but we are given the six distances between four places. Suppose that is all the information we have, and nothing else. Then represent those distances to scale on a flat piece of paper.

994

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distances between cities

« on: May 10, 2018, 09:41:41 PM »

What makes you think that the Flat Earth is laid out in the manner of a Northern Azimuthal projection?

What studies have you performed on the earth to show that the map, which we put out for mere visualization purposes only, and which was provided alongside other possibilities, is the real map of the earth?

Until you can show why this map you are trying to disprove has any merit at all I do not see what there is to answer for.

I specifically stated I was not making any assumptions about any specific map. My argument applies to any attempt to represent the observed distance on a flat piece of paper.

Indeed I wrote, in the very post you quoted 'Here is a challenge that doesn’t rely on angles or any existing map, but simply on observed distances between cities.'

995

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about flight times

« on: May 10, 2018, 08:50:16 PM »

I recall answering your question when you asked it. A mile is 5280 feet on FE and RE. The premise was that long distance systems based on a spherical coordinate systems are inaccurate in measuring a mile. Those systems are inaccurate.

Tom, would you accept evidence based on flight times? Time can be measured using an ordinary watch, and the measurement is independent of distance or the coordinate system.

And ditto to the question above. If the coordinate systems are inaccurate are they inaccurate measuring distance or are they inaccurate measuring time or are they inaccurate measuring both?

996

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Stand up proof

« on: May 10, 2018, 08:43:43 PM »

Those are called waves and swells.

See Thork's post here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=7s0qnveehrqo13t22vhqplekq7&topic=56962.msg1430186#msg1430186

Two replies: why does the swell always occur when sitting down, but never standing up? Logically swells would be random. Or we could use two cameras to take pictures at the same time, one at ground level, the other standing up.

And Tom, do you agree there would be no swell effect if the experiment were repeated in the desert, or salt flats?

997

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Stand up proof

« on: May 10, 2018, 07:46:52 PM »

And here is a wonderful demonstration of it https://www.metabunk.org/curve

998

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distances between cities

« on: May 10, 2018, 06:55:03 PM »

[..] But logic won't get you very far on here. [..]

Oh dear.

But let's see what FEers say. Are there any here? I have made a few posts, inviting replies, but radio silence so far.

999

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Notes on The Importance of Empiricism

« on: May 10, 2018, 06:53:24 PM »

The debates between rationalists and empiricists on the nature of the earth can be exceedingly difficult. If the opponents are unwilling to meet on an agreed playing field, reasoned debate is all but impossible. The empiricist will demand a reexamination of facts and first principles, while the rationalist counters and dismisses that need with 100 different arguments ranging from appeals to authority to strawman fallacies. The rationionalist knows that he is right, and considers the underlying science a settled matter.

To be fair to the rationalist, he is put into a tough situation. The rationalist is not only asked show that his theory is correct, but to also show that the underlying science itself is correct.

It is of great importance to guide the reader to understand that empericists, at their essence, are driven to question the fundamental assumptions of our universe to seek greater understanding.

Rationists claim to also seek greater understanding, but go about it in a far different way. Rationalists pride themselves on "standing on the shoulders of giants," creating theory that supplants theory, content with explanations that seemily describe the workings of things, but is ultimately founded on a house of cards. The rationalist may deny this, but in many areas it is easily demonstratable.

The rationalist/empiricist debate is a philosophical one.

The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
There is no corresponding debate in science, as far as I know. The method used in science is to calibrate observable data to some model of reality. The data should be verifiable, i.e. it should be open to anyone to check the data, and free from bias (no tampering by vested interests). If the model is consistent with the data, we accept it, at least temporarily. But then the progress of science consists in trying to falsify the model, i.e. try to find data that is not consistent with the model.

Does FE have a methodology on those lines? I think it has a model, namely a flat surface on which it should be possible to plot all the places in the known world. How is that model tested against the data? I posted elsewhere about how such a model is consistent with observable and verifiable data on flight times.

1000

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distances between cities

« on: May 10, 2018, 06:40:30 PM »

Because no map is possible with the given distances between cities they just deny the distances. It’s the old “this is true so anything which shows it not to be true must be wrong” argument.
It might be better to use distances between cities in mainland America, or on some other landmass where the distances can be verified by means other than flights.

You have been around this forum longer than I (today), and probably you are right. The problem with America is that its area is relatively small, and the method I used (a sheet of paper and a pencil) only works for large distances. Also, the same objection applies to U.S. distances. Perhaps the maps have been altered by the government?

The advantage of flight times is that many people travel by air, ordinary people who don’t necessarily work for government agencies. Time is not the same as distance, but the FE theory would then require that airlines fly slower or faster in order to conform to the FE model. But (a) what incentive would commercial airlines have and (b) it’s actually very difficult, if not impossible, to determine the required aircraft speed for each route. I.e. if the earth were flat, air traffic controllers or pilots would have to work out precisely what speeds to fly in order to make it seem that the earth was round. Why would they bother? Why would any commercial company do that? How would it even be possible?