21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are flat-heads willing to admit that they are wrong?

« on: May 04, 2018, 07:39:20 AM »

Why would we admit we're wrong? And we're not destroyed in debates here. Round earthers take cheap shots and gang up on us that it becomes too tedious and time-consuming to continue the debates.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9466.0
As I assume happened here?  Although, one tiny problem...... it was one-on-one debating!  It was one FE'er, one RE'er, just going at it.  We asked a question. 
You've had since the 21st of April.  You still haven't answered.  There were no cheap shots.  No ganging up on one another.  Just a typical finish to a debate here.  To better explain, I will present a model of that debate.

RE #1:  Proof.
FE #1:  Sly trick, but works.
RE #1:  Rebuttal.
FE #1:  Another trick.
RE#1:  RE #1 Wants proving model.
RE #1: RE #1 Asking again.
FE'ers never post again.  So far.

There are 1000 of you to 1 of us.

I urge you to read these lines.  As you can see, this was one-on-one.  "It was 1000 to 1!" doesn't work.

In fact, the number of people willing to debate against flat Earth nonsense is very small. It's not a very productive use of one's time. The problem that flat Earth advocates have is that they are dealing with intractable facts, not that access to the facts is impossible.

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If there are supposedly thousands of satellites orbiting earth, why hasn't the

« on: May 04, 2018, 07:31:41 AM »

Do the maths.

Now you know that's not going to happen. If this particular poster (the holocaust denier) were able to do the maths, an entire belief system would fall apart.

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: May 04, 2018, 07:28:54 AM »

I understand the assertion that the horizon rises to eye level but if you think about it theoretically if you're looking at the ground 1 foot in front of you then you're looking down at an angle. If you're looking at the ground one mile in front of you then you are also looking down at an angle, just a shallower one.
The further you look the shallower that angle becomes. At what point does that angle become 0? At infinity.
And given we can only see a finite distance, the horizon cannot be exactly at eye level because if the earth is flat you will always be looking down at a slight angle.
It's a triangle. H is one side, the ground is the other side and the hypotenuse is the line from your eye to the ground. So there has to be an angle, even if it's a shallow one.

So that is the theory, but that also matches the empirical observations. Why are FE, who claim to be empiricists, denying empirical observations which show that horizon isn't at eye level?
Or rather, where is their empirical evidence showing that it does?

This is part of the original confused thinking going back to Rowbotham. Clinging to this confused thinking is central to the project. Thinking clearly would derail the whole thing.

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space Tourists

« on: May 03, 2018, 08:33:53 AM »

There are too many unknowns to give an answer on this subject.

Not really adding to the debate is it Tom? Typical evasive answer that does nothing for the discussion.

Is there too many unknowns for what answer?
Do you agree that there is a conspiracy?

Are there are too many unknowns to say if there is a conspiracy, or not a conspiracy?  or if space travel is possible, or imppossible? or If there are or not space tourists, or if they are or are not in on said conspiracy?

Surely the Wiki should be updated to reflect that, i.e. this subject is unknown, and cannot be confirmed?

It's the final retreating point when the weight of uncomfortable facts becomes too much. We're now in a situation where the space programme impacts on everybody's life, in a myriad of ways. We have people on Twitter, posting from space. We can meet astronauts, or people who've worked on some part of the space programme. OTOH, we never meet anyone or hear of anyone who has anything to do with the alternative explanations. We never hear from the people setting up the fake rockets, or the fake satellite TV. What we get are proofs that rockets are impossible, like this gem here



Note how many of the comments are supportive of this gibberish. When that's the evidence against, with the massive weight of evidence for, then a believer has no choice but to retreat into "we just don't know".

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: May 02, 2018, 10:56:23 PM »

I thought of adding two little floats with cross hairs on the level water and then use those like a gun sight. But the simplest way to me seems to not even worry about sighting level with the water and just let the perspective lines tell you where the vanishing point of "eye-level" is. I just don't know if skeptics will buy that, even though perspective and vanishing point is their argument for the apparent horizon.

Forget about convincing sceptics. They won't be convinced, regardless. After your results are posted, they'll carry on citing Rowbotham and the horizon rising to eye level as if you hadn't posted anything. What you're doing - designing an experiment to determine whether a phenomenon exists, and adapting it to fit circumstances.

I note that things have been very, very quiet here for a while - which is perhaps a tribute to the effectiveness of your experiments.

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: May 02, 2018, 10:10:10 AM »

If Sam Rowbotham's method was acceptable, we should be able to replicate it, and for elevations quite higher than the top floor of the Grand Brighton.

I think it would strike me and perhaps most people that the diagram he used to show the Grand Hotel towering over the globe like a nail driven into an orange was not quite to scale, and the difference between inclination to the horizon at sea level and on the second floor of the hotel was unlikely to be significant.

Like many of his diagrams to try and prove his point.

The diagrams 15 show the piers inclined approx 20 degrees to the horizontal, just as other diagrams showing the earth, such as 20 and 24 are exaggerated to try to prove his point, and attempt make it look ridiculous for the earth to be round.
Almost all of his diagrams have errors in principle or exaggeration in them, so cannot be used as indications of much at all.

Problems with that measurement -

• He doesn't give the height of the hotel
• He doesn't describe his equipment in detail
• He doesn't calculate the expected angle to a horizon on the globe
• He doesn't express the degree of accuracy of his equipment

The chief merit of his experiment is to show his capacities and a thinker and a scientist.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: May 02, 2018, 09:43:09 AM »

If Sam Rowbotham's method was acceptable, we should be able to replicate it, and for elevations quite higher than the top floor of the Grand Brighton.

I think it would strike me and perhaps most people that the diagram he used to show the Grand Hotel towering over the globe like a nail driven into an orange was not quite to scale, and the difference between inclination to the horizon at sea level and on the second floor of the hotel was unlikely to be significant.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: May 02, 2018, 08:04:33 AM »

Like this:

I'm impressed by the effort going into this. Of course, it won't convert one person - but it will be revealing. Note that no flat Earthers are confidently proclaiming that this will confirm their assertions because they know in their heart of hearts that it won't.

It is telling that it's RE people who are making effort, doing empirical experiments and it's FE people who, instead of devising their own experiments and publishing the results, are just doing everything they can to deny the results of these experiments even when they are right there in front of their eyes.

It shows that you don't need "organisation" or "funding" to do experiments, you can do some yourself at little or no cost. So why don't they? (Rhetorical question)

We see regular demands that we do research. "Think for yourself!" Here's someone actually devising an experiment that can verify a key element of flat Earth theory. Since this is something that the propagandists for a globe Earth deny is real, it means that a genuine crack exists in the whole conspiracy. Ordinary people can start checking for themselves. "Wow! The horizon really does rise to eye level! Everything I know is a lie!" The Illuminati will be overthrown. The world will enter a new era of truth.

Obviously every experiment can be critiqued. What if the levelling device is sloshing around and the photo is taken when it happens to be on a slant? I would welcome every helpful suggestion to make sure that these experiments work perfectly.

Given that we are on the verge of a real breakthrough in flat Earth theory, I can't help but notice - it's a bit quiet. There's not a lot of response from the flat Earth community here. It's almost as if... kind of... they don't think that these experiments will actually support their theory. I know that can't be true, so there must be some other explanation.

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: May 01, 2018, 11:54:53 PM »

Like this:

I'm impressed by the effort going into this. Of course, it won't convert one person - but it will be revealing. Note that no flat Earthers are confidently proclaiming that this will confirm their assertions because they know in their heart of hearts that it won't.

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space Tourists

« on: May 01, 2018, 11:52:20 PM »

We've heard this for literally decades. Aaany moment now, any second now, there will be tourists in space aplenty and that one guy will drag an asteroid into orbit and build a hotel on it. Oh yeah, and SpaceX will deliver BFR despite the fact that it's a logistical nightmare for reasons which have nothing to do with space travel. It's happening, guys, so, so soon!

Why don't we just wait until it actually starts happening, if it ever does?

I actually don't think space tourism will become within the grasp of the average person in my lifetime.
I've gone into more detail about this before but there are physical laws which make it tricky. Basically: F=ma
And we don't yet have an efficient enough away to generate enough F to make spaceflight cheap enough for your average Tom.
So yes, some of the excited talk about moon bases and hotels in space were a little optimistic, to say the least.
But the point of this thread was that space tourism is now a thing, yes it's only in the reach of the super-rich right now but it has happened.
So are all those people lying too? Are they all "in on it"?

The actual energy needed to bring a person into space is quite small. I believe it's of the order of a few gallons of petrol. However, the problem is that the fuel needs to be carried, and that needs fuel to carry it, which needs fuel to carry it... and most of the weight is the fuel, and the container for the fuel.

If you had an option like, say, a laser from a ground station providing the energy, it might be possible to get around this. But nobody is even working on this approach at present.

The other option is the space elevator, which relies on fairly exotic materials, though such materials have been mooted.

The point being that there's no fundamental principle that space travel needs to be hugely energy/fuel expensive. It certainly will be for the foreseeable future though.

I doubt if space tourism will be something commonly available in the next century. No matter - there's no reasonable way to deny that space travel happens.

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space travel conspiracy

« on: May 01, 2018, 03:37:12 PM »

I saw a shuttle launch one time, just happened to be in Florida on holiday at the right time.
Was absolutely amazing.

This is another opportunity for a flat Earth advocate to debunk space travel. Find out when a launch is planned, then go along to see exactly what is really happening.

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: May 01, 2018, 07:28:01 AM »

Checking out the direction of that pool, it looks like the sun would set right down the centerline in late February or March. Not sure of the exact azimuth that pool is aimed at, but makes me wonder if it lines up with the equinox sunset.

Nope. It's about a month off. Sun sets right down the chute on February 20th and October 20th; not the equinoxes. Oh well.

Somewhere out there there's a similar shot from a building with the Sun setting below the lines of perspective. Well done anyway for finding this one, and entirely refuting the "horizon rises to eye level" concept. It quite clearly shows how perspective works, and the key thing is that it works just as our experience would expect it to work. Put the observer at ground level, and the perspective lines converge at ground level. Put the observer above ground level, and the perspective lines converge as shown.

Alter that picture to make the perspective lines converge on the horizon, and it would look very strange indeed - as if it were tilting away from us.

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space Tourists

« on: May 01, 2018, 07:09:37 AM »

And how does it explain the Columbia shuttle disaster with bits of the shuttle being spread across the states, as well as rather unique debris?
Was Nasa responsible for killing the astronauts?
And the Challenger explosion? They were seen in the launch pad a few minutes earlier, and then the rather public failure of the launch. Was Nasa involved in the murder in order to keep the myth going?

All rather far fetched if i might say so.

If nothing else Occams Razor coming into effect here should well and truly ensure the conspiracy theory is cut. Far too many assumptions with NO FACTS to a conspiracy, other than even more tenuous and completely irrational assumption that the world is flat to then make a whole bunch of other assumptions about a fake space programme.

Really?

I wonder how it works, in practice. Do the space travel sceptics have a dual view of the world, where satellite phones and satellite tv continue to be a part of everyday life, but then switch into another mode when they decide that such things don't exist? Or is there some vast complex edifice of confusion where it all seems to make sense in some absurd way.

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Refraction and the Bedford Canal

« on: April 30, 2018, 11:25:11 PM »

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8949.0

Thank you. This appears to show considerable confusion of mind by trying to combine an unproven and undoubtedly incorrect idea (the supposed magnification of the Sun) with a misunderstanding of perspective in a way that doesn't actually work on either terms.

It shows the problem in refuting these concepts - there's not enough substance to grasp at to show where the many errors lie. I'll try to give some idea of it in due course.

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: April 30, 2018, 11:08:11 PM »

There's an estate on a 2000' peak just 7 miles from the ocean that sold at auction not too long ago, giving the public some video and photo of the mansion and grounds. It has a long infinity pool pointed directly toward the western horizon. What a great setting that would be for a "horizon rises to eye level" proof demonstration:

Same pool, but with better images, and from a great vantage point.



Now with 1px perspective lines (black) and horizon (white)



Camera leveling won't change the perspective lines. If the architecture isn't square and/or the pool is actually titled up (so that water flows away from the infinity edge), then they shouldn't converge to a perspective vanishing point above the horizon, IF it's true that the horizon rises to eye-level.

Unless I'm interpreting this incorrectly.

I'm not using it as proof of anything. Just a hint of what we might expect the results to be of a controlled observation.

That's pretty conclusive, but it would be nice if you could get a sunset in the same picture. A fake sunset, of course!

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: April 30, 2018, 06:15:18 PM »

The fundamental problem here is the FE belief is not based on evidence, it is despite the evidence.
They say they rely on empirical measurements but they don't, or rather they dismiss any empirical evidence which doesn't fit with their world view.
Witness how Tom tried all kinds of things to discredit the laser and boat experiment before finally understanding it...and declaring it fraudulent anyway despite none of the objections standing up to scrutiny.
And now he's been shown 3 different ways of showing horizon dip which all give the same result - but it's a result he doesn't want so he dismisses all of them on spurious grounds.

The only solution is for him to do some experiments himself to demonstrate his claims. We can do them all day - and people have - and he will dismiss all of them if they don't show what he wants. He claims to be an empiricist but he refuses to do any empirical measurements. Funny that. The only hint of him doing anything along these lines is the "Bishop Experiment" which he has no documentation of and he's pretty clearly lying about.

The mindset is based on this Wiki page which has been deleted, I don't know why as it perfectly describes the prevailing FE mindset on here:

P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth

(My emphasis). So we are wasting our time. Tom can't personally verify the results of our experiments and he refuses to do so himself.
Checkmate.
He demands "irrefutable evidence" but that doesn't exist. You can refute any evidence if you're bloody minded enough.
As I said some time ago, you can do this about anything:

"I don't believe kangaroos exist".
"What?! Here's a Wiki page about them."
"Cool. Here's a Wiki page about dragons, do they exist too?"
"Here's a video of a kangaroo!"
"That's fake. Have you heard of CGI?"
"Right. We're at a zoo. Look. There's a kangaroo!"
"Looks like animatronic to me..."

And so on. It's ridiculous, of course, but if you're only interested in sticking to your guns come what may then you can dismiss anything, even if the dismissals become increasingly stupid.

Which leaves me with the thought that he's just here for fun, enjoys trying to debate from indefensible positions and doesn't believe any of this.

This is a particularly interesting one because it's a simple claim that can be rebutted very simply. It's not possible to rationally deny it. When you're up a mountain looking out to sea, the horizon is not at eye level. There's no sensible argument to refute this. We've shown that it's true beyond any reasonable doubt, and anyone who does the same test will find the same thing.

So at this stage, the interest is psychological. How fixed is the idea so that the denial is persisted with in spite of any evidence?

37

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space Tourists

« on: April 30, 2018, 06:05:27 PM »

It will only be a few more years before the rich will be going to space on a more regular basis.   It will be harder and harder to deny reality when tens if not hundreds of people have been.  Every one of them will have videos and pictures on social media.   

The globe is already an everyday reality for most people, as is space travel. There could be people going back and forth to a Mars colony and there will still be flat Earthers. It's not going away because of proof, because we already have proof.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Refraction and the Bedford Canal

« on: April 30, 2018, 05:57:23 PM »

I've explained the concept here on this forum in the past. Do a forum search for "dime" by the user "Tom Bishop" if you are curious on what I have written on the subject.

I did that and I really don't want to go through that again.There was a whole lot of stuff there about the rotation of the Earth around the Sun and how it isn't a whole number of days and hence flat Earth. Please at least give a page number.

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are flat-heads willing to admit that they are wrong?

« on: April 30, 2018, 05:38:42 PM »

Since we're on the topic...
I do not wish to insult, but this signature is unfortunate.
Not believing in evolution: wrong but reasonable. It's hard to observe and there's much confusion between the colloquial and scientific meanings of "theory".
Not believing in the globe: wrong but reasonable. It's a flat earth forum after all.
Not believing in the holocaust: wrong and unreasonable. The event was heavily documented and detailed, it was an immense tradgedy, and we need to establish "yes this did happen" so we do not forget the horrors of genocide. Not only that, but to deny it's occurrence it to deny the suffering and death of 6 million people who were starved, oveworked, opressed, burned, and gassed to death for not being Aryan. This is not a matter of 'proof' and 'alternative facts'. It's history.
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005143
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/the-holocaust
https://www.britannica.com/event/Holocaust
http://www.yadvashem.org/holocaust/about.html
http://endgenocide.org/learn/past-genocides/the-holocaust/
Get some reading done.

It's worth noting because, while the belief in a flat Earth is relatively harmless, the mode of thinking that it involves is anything but. I'm far from surprised that there's an association with Holocaust denial among flat Earth proponents - not because I think they are necessarily malignant racists, but because they are willing to ignore evidence in order to feel that they've seen past a massive conspiracy.

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space travel conspiracy

« on: April 30, 2018, 01:31:24 PM »

Since we cannot see a rocket from earth,

It's possible to see rockets being launched, and going up into the sky until they disappear from view. It's possible to find satellites in the sky and see them passing overhead. It's possible to point a commercially-available device at a satellite, and pick up a signal from it. I'm not sure what else could be provided as evidence.