121

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility

« on: May 05, 2019, 02:21:36 PM »

From the wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/Shifting_Constellations) "Firstly, we must understand that the stars in FE are small and a few thousand miles above the sea level of the earth." But to my understanding the above critic does assume Polaris (it's weird to talk about myself in third person) to be much farther.

122

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility

« on: May 05, 2019, 11:17:30 AM »

It can’t be due to vanishing perspective, because in the OP example the stars which are supposed to have vanished are closer than the stars that are visible.

The OP diagrams do not prove the earth is a globe, you have this all wrong. OP is asking a question about FE claims, using a FE map, and using stars known to be visible in certain locations.

The depicted diagram is misleading, how do we know that model to be right? And what FE model is that criticism addressing? Of course they don't prove earth is a globe, to date any single attempt to prove that has spectacularly failed.

You, however, are not offering a zetetic answer. You are offering a dogmatic answer: Rowbotham said it’s flat so something you did somewhere has to be wrong.

No sir, OP is using FE resources to ask a FE question. It behooves you to provide a FE response. If you cannot do so then (to date) no FE response exists, which means this is another basic zetetic observation that FET cannot answer.

Rowbotham proposed repeatable experiments that stood any close examination and prove beyond doubt the planarity of earth. That's not a dogma, it's real science. Anyway, the final answer is not up to me, each of us must do its own research and draw its own conclusions.

123

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility

« on: May 05, 2019, 09:53:43 AM »

Amusing that you don't realize that a star perfectly knows the shape of Earth, since I can see it from the sky (at least the Northern hemisphere). But can you see that whatever non-sense sounds like a FE "reasoning"?

Anyway, if you dig the forum you'll see that no "real" FE will discuss this topic, so I put a possible reply. From the wiki

"Ergo, when I stand outside and look into the skies, the star constellations I do not see are simply invisible past the vanishing point, beyond my perspective. When I travel south I am moving to a new location, changing my perspective, rising up a completely different set stars"

And also Rowbotham used his famous Bedford Canal Experiment to prove that (since Atmospheric Refraction is just fiction) "deny the existence of rotundity, and to declare that, "to all intents and purposes," absolutely and logically, beyond doubt, THE EARTH IS A VAST IRREGULAR PLANE."

So it comes by necessity that if your diagrams prove Earth is a globe, than your diagrams must be wrong, or at least have a (albeit tiny) measurement error that casts an unacceptable doubt upon your conclusions, because "those who are convinced that the earth is a plane, and that the extreme south is a vast circumference instead of a polar centre. To these the evidence already adduced will be sufficiently demonstrative"

124

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility

« on: May 04, 2019, 10:05:07 PM »

Then, the Text experiment:
Any southern country, south of Argentina, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, can easily see Alpha Crucis (the bright absolute -4.14 magnitude star on the Crux Constellation), almost simultaneously during winter time, July, since the darkness of the sky allows it.  That is a fact for millions that live on the very southern hemisphere, they can even take pictures with date/time to show it.

Easy answer: no. As reported by Rowbotham, see https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm, Sir James Clarke Ross could not see Sigma Octantis for a fair while, even if he was supposed to see it as RET states. So your test experiment cannot work. From your computations it's clear you're assuming RE before proving it, so you're biased.

125

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map

« on: May 04, 2019, 12:27:18 AM »

I did this exercise using Google Sketch-up and published mileage from the airlines.  The results were as expected.  North of the equator it worked reasonably well but it collapsed when southern cities were attempted.

Since 90% of humans live in the Northern Hemisphere, flat earth maps must be convincing only above the equator. Obviously an Australian would be offended to see his island warped as it is in Rowbotham's map.

126

Flat Earth Community / Re: Wiki: Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof

« on: April 25, 2019, 12:07:42 PM »

From what I’ve seen there is an uncanny level of denial when it comes to the stronger evidence for RE which makes me wonder if FE’ers actually even want to question their beliefs...

Let me add a "Occam's Razor"-style argument: resources. My experience is that it is very difficult to squander resources (money, fuel, time, space, etc...), without a compelling reason, for a long period of time. Sooner or later (usually sooner) someone will expose you, or will outsmart you, or will propose a better alternative. So, believing that a worldwide, decade-wide, space agencies conspiracy burning huge money just for the sake of "winning" is ridicolous. Also thinking that no competing nation would expose it. Or thinking that companies would not benefit from not believing in fe, or a journalist wouldn't be glad to leak the conspiracy. Believing in fe is really viewing life in an unnatural way (maybe that's the good part l

127

Flat Earth Community / Re: In exposing the conspiracy aren't you putting your lives at great risk?

« on: April 25, 2019, 11:44:57 AM »

Another theory is that flat earthers are killed constantly but they are done so in such a way that no one every finds out about it.

That's what they say about tigerdan925, who "disappeared" in the middle of producing some videos where he was showing the actual existence of Antarctica , nobody knows what really happened to him.

128

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How to believe a person is sincere when claiming earth is flat.

« on: April 25, 2019, 11:37:04 AM »

If someone comes here and says this is the flat earth model that makes the most sense to me why would you instantly assume they are lying?

I don't assume this, my current method is to understand if they are emotionally involved in that model. I consider that as a good sign. Still, as you point out, some models have so strong limitations that I can't see how someone should believe in them.

Most of the Wiki pages on phenomena are pretty model-agnostic, and we wrote them to be that way.

That's the way to go

129

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do many many youtube videos of people with home made rockets show curvature?

« on: April 21, 2019, 04:09:41 PM »

The moment we tell you how to arrive at your truth, however, we've influenced the process. Some view this as an issue, others don't.

The alternative (to not influence) being silent all the time, I guess?

Also, I'm not sure why you took issue with that particular sentence. I'd understand if you were objecting to the claim that most of these photos are doctored, but the Wiki states they are most likely not.

Because it somehow implies there exists a process for including photographs as credible evidence and, if this is indeed the case, I'd be curious to know it.

As an aside, do we know how Rowbotham was deciding that a sailor was to be trusted when reporting distances in the south hemisphere?

130

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do many many youtube videos of people with home made rockets show curvature?

« on: April 21, 2019, 01:01:05 PM »

Isn't the main point of the Zetetic method to deny the existence of someone doctoring others?

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate on your question?

In the FAQ it's written "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."  and also Rowbotham says "The term Zetetic is... to take nothing for granted". And to my understanding zeteticism is all about pure empiricism, avoiding theoretical considerations.

Doesn't this means that Zetetics don't tell others "what" to think (they don't say "this is true, trust me."), but rather "How you arrive in thinking through experiment"?

131

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do many many youtube videos of people with home made rockets show curvature?

« on: April 20, 2019, 12:42:04 AM »

The Wiki has a page about this.

https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

I'm a bit lost on the apparent contradiction of a Spotlight Sun and the Solar day in Antartica (also considering it as a continent). I did not find much on the wiki and I only found this conversation here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5143.0

Also I'm not a huge fan of the starting sentence "Most pictures of the earth taken by amateur balloonists at very high altitudes are not doctored". Isn't the main point of the Zetetic method to deny the existence of someone doctoring others?

132

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map

« on: April 19, 2019, 05:25:47 PM »

A or not A. The first absolute.

Yes, a logical statement must have a truth value.

The conversation is maybe overshooting the epistemological requirements of a flat earth map, but since your nickname is QED, may I point you to this little theorem stating there exist true statements that aren't neither provable nor disprovable. It's due to Kurt Gödel, you can find it here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/index.html

133

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Scepticism vs denialism

« on: April 17, 2019, 09:12:48 PM »

After a lot of thought I came to the conclusion that "nihilist denialism" doesn't exist by itself and it is just "fall on deaf ears for hidden motives". My argument starts with the definition of nihilism: "rejection of principles". But this means that I could reject nihilism itself. Somehow a nihilist should deny nihilism itself, and this paradox looks unsolvable. My second argument is that something similar happens with the definition of God, that is undefinable by definition. Thirdly, and lastly, the only approach toward dismissing the belief of god is putting the burden of proof on those who claim its existence. Same happens with the nihilistic, because saying just "no" it's not enough.

This being my argument, it's clear that people like B.o.B. or Tila Tequila just run a business and use flat earth for marketing, similarly to Mark Sargent who clearly doesn't care about flat earth. For them it is pointless to look for sophisticated Philosophy.

On the other side, Science is indeed based on principles, and even though they led us to bridges, planes, computers, etc..., there's not a real way to claim they are absolute (actually, it'd be quite worrying to do so). Here is where the real flat earthers appear. I don't consider them skeptics, rather they speak a completely different language.

EDIT: I liked the link of Marcello Truzzi, he also seem to say that "negative skeptics" are often "cheating pseudo-skeptics". Apologize for my word salad.

134

Science & Alternative Science / Re: I'm a Globe Earther, Ask Me Anything!

« on: April 17, 2019, 08:24:09 PM »

Greetings fellow flat earthers!  I have a fairly strong background in science and I would like to provide an opportunity to for people to ask me questions in regards to main stream science that they don't understand or is in conflict with how they view the world.  It is my goal to be as respectful to people as possible and to help people understand scientific principals.  My area of expertise is in general chemistry and physics, so that will likely be the approach I take in offering explanations.  I will make every effort to be clear and accurate in what I say and I'll let you know if I don't feel confident in my understanding in a particular topic so I don't lead people astray.  But for the most part, I should be able to provide a response for most of the topics I heard flat earthers discuss in videos on youtube.  Alright Flat Earth Society, Ask Me Anything! 

I'm not a flat earther, but if I were one I would ask, how do you deal with measurement error? For example, suppose on Equinox day I measure the angle of the rising Sun with the horizon, using the latest instruments, and I get, with a confidence of seven sigma, that the angle is 90° +- 1e-15. Of course I'm mimicking the standard of scientific papers, that would never state something like "to all intent and purposes, absolutely and logically, beyond doubt, the angle is not 90°". The latter is really convincing and aligns with the well known fact that the Sun is hovering over us, but the former is not, it is actually sabotaging itself saying there there's actually the possibility of an error! (of a possilby large magnitude) How can scientists trust each other if every single statement they made is always "up to a measurement error", in particular if this proves a known falsity like globe earth?

135

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How to believe a person is sincere when claiming earth is flat.

« on: April 15, 2019, 08:15:36 PM »

It's, uh... interesting to see that the bikini crowd has made their way down here.

I do appreciate the wiki effort. It creates order out of a chaos.

Thanks for the advice, I will pay more attention to "weird details".

136

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map

« on: April 15, 2019, 08:01:32 PM »

It may not be denied by the society as a whole but I've seen  several posts providing evidence that GPS is inaccurate, fake, or deliberately misleading

I do not promote either Google Maps or the GPS system, but there is no way around computing distances for creating a map. Secondly, I do understand that GPS distances will have a (possibly deliberate) error, but to disguise a plane as a sphere is a blatant distortion that is light years more obvious than "someone on the Internet believes GPS to be inaccurate". I say this because I believe that looking for a fe map looks like a crucial task in destroying the globe.

137

Flat Earth Investigations / How to believe a person is sincere when claiming earth is flat.

« on: April 14, 2019, 08:04:23 PM »

I honestly have this (non-scientific) problem that I do not know how to discern "false fes" from "true fes". I have this feeling that an alleged fe could, at any moment and paying no price, reveal himself as someone who was just pretending for other purposes: attention-seekers, marketers, trolls, etc.

Don't get me wrong, the same holds for round earthers. But at least, round earthers all do believe in a single model,  they all conform to all authorities, and each of them proposes a variety of reasons to believe in a round earth. If they lie, they all tell the very same lie, and I can be sure they don't have a second purpose. At worse they're just gullible fellows believing the biggest lie ever.

This isn't true for fes. Each fe has a different story,  different authorities and they seem united only by their denial of a globe earth. If some of them are lying, they say a different lie from others. So someone may falsely push for an ancient belief of a dome, and someone else may falsely push for an infinite plane. In both cases, I feel I cannot in any way understand if they believe in what they're saying or not, since questions like "what did you experiment?", "what exactly is your model?", or "how do you explain xyx?" mainly go unanswered and usually they make those questions look like deceitful. Moreover, many of them try to monetize fe, without feeling the urge to unite with other fes, and this really does not help.

Any thought, approach, tip, or trick will be appreciated

138

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?

« on: April 14, 2019, 07:17:43 PM »

Indeed. I don't think this is worthy of further debate until Tom does his own tests and publishes the results and his method for review.

Apparently it's pointless to ask such questions as "what is the best tool for..." or ask for results, because the "zetetic method" denies trust to peers and force their followers to personally reproduce their experiments. It's up to a zeteticist to trust or not its own experiment and live on his own conclusions. On the other side the scientific method, that is quite misunderstood by Tom Bishop, is ultimately based on giving the best possible answer with the best possible tool and reducing the chance to be wrong, but that probability cannot, and never will, be zero. Actually, the study of measurement error you'll always have in any device is the very first step in any science course. Any scientist knows that any conclusion he'll take is true up to his measurement error. And this is good, because it creates a community where everyone will accept as truer the measurements taken with the best instruments! I cannot see bacteria with my own eyes, but someone with a microscope did and that becomes the leading hp!

139

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Where is eye level in this photo?

« on: April 14, 2019, 12:40:50 AM »

Trick question.  All of the "HEIGHTS" given are relative to sea level, which is not shown in photo.  For instance, Mt. Saint Helens has a PROMINENCE of only 4606 feet.  The Mount Jefferson's PROMINENCE is 5707 feet We would need the PROMINENCE numbers of all the peaks to calculate a proper eye level calculation.  The earth is FLAT, but nobody is saying it is LEVEL!

Water is level. Actually, it should be called "flat water" rather than flat earth. Each mount height is taken from the water level.

140

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map

« on: April 13, 2019, 05:19:57 PM »

Distances on Google Maps are consistent with GPS ones, and GPS existence itself is not denied by fes. Being made of numbers (no optical illusions, no conspiracies), distances should be the method of preference to actually prove the geometrical property of being flat. Amusingly enough, Robotham did not touch this topic in his Earth not a globe.