The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: RichHoagland on April 01, 2021, 08:54:31 PM

Title: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: RichHoagland on April 01, 2021, 08:54:31 PM

https://theobservermagazine.substack.com/p/flat-earth-vs-circular-reasoning (https://theobservermagazine.substack.com/p/flat-earth-vs-circular-reasoning)

Interesting article that dissects a lame attempt by the mainstream media (Space.com in this case) to discredit F-E arguments and researchers.

Long time lurker on these forums and thought the team would get a kick out of it.

https://theobservermagazine.substack.com/p/flat-earth-vs-circular-reasoning
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 02, 2021, 09:25:19 AM
Key sentence here:

Quote
The author does provide one proof that has proven to be unassailable by flat-Earthers

This is technically true, but only because FE belief involves shifting to a sceptical context, but only selectively.
Good article about that here:

https://qz.com/1264453/to-argue-with-flat-earthers-use-philosophy-not-science/
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: RichHoagland on April 02, 2021, 02:16:59 PM
Great information thanks for the reply. When you say "shift" to a skeptical perspective - can you elaborate?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 02, 2021, 05:40:01 PM
Great information thanks for the reply. When you say "shift" to a skeptical perspective - can you elaborate?
I mean the level of evidence for something  which will be accepted by a person depends on whether the something conforms to their beliefs.

We are all prone to this to an extent - there are psychological effects like confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. But it’s taken to the extreme by some people.

In the skeptical context you never really know anything. But most people don’t apply that to every situation.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: RichHoagland on April 02, 2021, 07:33:43 PM
Agreed - keeping an open yet questioning mind is important. Many things believe we can't empirically prove.

Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 04, 2021, 06:29:42 PM
That's a good article in the OP. If there are contradicting observations to the sinking ship effect it is the duty of that scientist to get to the bottom of it, not to ignore it and continue repeating the dogma.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 05, 2021, 06:09:02 AM
That's a good article in the OP. If there are contradicting observations to the sinking ship effect it is the duty of that scientist to get to the bottom of it, not to ignore it and continue repeating the dogma.
It’s generally differing levels of refraction.
Mystery solved.
You know this of course, you have posted a time lapse video which shows this.

But on the Wiki you claim the Bishop experiment yields consistent results
“over and over throughout the year."
Strangely, you have never thought to document those results.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: Tumeni on April 05, 2021, 08:50:33 AM
That's a good article in the OP. If there are contradicting observations to the sinking ship effect it is the duty of that scientist to get to the bottom of it, not to ignore it and continue repeating the dogma.

You can "get to the bottom of it" by observing ships, islands, wind turbines, and other items on the water which are far closer than the point at which they appear to "sink".

Apply the principles of Experiment 2, and use observer height vs. object height to determine whether or not your line of sight is parallel to the water.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2021, 10:57:21 AM
That's a good article in the OP. If there are contradicting observations to the sinking ship effect it is the duty of that scientist to get to the bottom of it, not to ignore it and continue repeating the dogma.
It’s generally differing levels of refraction.
Mystery solved.
You know this of course, you have posted a time lapse video which shows this.

But on the Wiki you claim the Bishop experiment yields consistent results
“over and over throughout the year."
Strangely, you have never thought to document those results.

You need to prove which version is refraction. Mystery not solved.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 05, 2021, 11:45:07 AM
You need to prove which version is refraction. Mystery not solved.
What do you mean “which version”?
The amount of refraction varies depending on atmospheric conditions. That’s what the time lapse shows. So...all the versions, I guess? Just to varying degrees.

But for some reason that didn’t seem to be an issue for you, you claim you can get consistent results. Can you prove that?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2021, 11:47:01 AM
The amount of refraction varies depending on atmospheric conditions. That’s what the time lapse shows. So...all the versions, I guess?

So your sinking ship proof is invalidated, since you don't know how much refraction exists and in which direction. You guys should have studied it more before proclaiming that the earth is a globe.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 05, 2021, 11:55:08 AM
So your sinking ship proof is invalidated
It’s invalidated by the Bishop experiment, which demonstrates that a span of 23 miles of sea is flat.
Unfortunately you forgot to take your camera on all the occasions when you did the experiment and thus have failed to revolutionise science.
Suggest you take it next time so you can claim your Nobel prize.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2021, 12:08:48 PM
So your sinking ship proof is invalidated
It’s invalidated by the Bishop experiment, which demonstrates that a span of 23 miles of sea is flat.
Unfortunately you forgot to take your camera on all the occasions when you did the experiment and thus have failed to revolutionise science.
Suggest you take it next time so you can claim your Nobel prize.

Seeing that there are many pictures and videos of this, and that you acknowledge the existence of this ability to see further than should be possible on an RE, I don't see what you are getting at. Since you acknowledging this effect, and appeal to 'refraction' for this, we can see that you have nothing except excuses and poor arguments.

I would suggest that you actually start working on proving that the sunken version is the version without refraction, and work on collecting evidence to support your tarnished theory.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: Tumeni on April 05, 2021, 12:15:25 PM
That's a good article in the OP. If there are contradicting observations to the sinking ship effect it is the duty of that scientist to get to the bottom of it, not to ignore it and continue repeating the dogma.

You can "get to the bottom of it" by observing ships, islands, wind turbines, and other items on the water which are far closer than the point at which they appear to "sink".

Apply the principles of Experiment 2, and use observer height vs. object height to determine whether or not your line of sight is parallel to the water.

Like this;

If, as in experiment 2, Rowbottom had a middle (black) flag which was half the height of the (white) others around it along his line of sight, then, if he looked along the tops of the flags along line A-B, or at the top of the higher flag at D, his sight line would always be above the height of the middle black flag, wouldn't it? There's no way to draw a straightline A-B or A-D which meets the black flag at any point.

So, if you, as a zetetic observer, were to look out from height H, across an expanse of water far longer than his canal, at an island, hill, or other landmass of similar or greater height than your observation height, then all objects of lesser height than H between you and that far landmass would be below your sightline. Their highest point could not get inbetween your eye and the far landmass. If the expanse of water is truly flat.

Agree?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2021, 12:29:59 PM
That's a good article in the OP. If there are contradicting observations to the sinking ship effect it is the duty of that scientist to get to the bottom of it, not to ignore it and continue repeating the dogma.

You can "get to the bottom of it" by observing ships, islands, wind turbines, and other items on the water which are far closer than the point at which they appear to "sink".

Apply the principles of Experiment 2, and use observer height vs. object height to determine whether or not your line of sight is parallel to the water.

Like this;

If, as in experiment 2, Rowbottom had a middle (black) flag which was half the height of the (white) others around it along his line of sight, then, if he looked along the tops of the flags along line A-B, or at the top of the higher flag at D, his sight line would always be above the height of the middle black flag, wouldn't it? There's no way to draw a straightline A-B or A-D which meets the black flag at any point.

So, if you, as a zetetic observer, were to look out from height H, across an expanse of water far longer than his canal, at an island, hill, or other landmass of similar or greater height than your observation height, then all objects of lesser height than H between you and that far landmass would be below your sightline. Their highest point could not get inbetween your eye and the far landmass. If the expanse of water is truly flat.

Agree?

Multi-point experiments like Experiment 2 have been conducted and reproduced. If you want further experiments at this point I would suggest that you start a YouTube channel and perform your own experiments.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence

Quote
Similar Experiments

Modern versions of the multi-point experiments like Experiment Two above have been conducted.

- Four Light Rock Lake Manitoba Test (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAe8AxCUda8) - Runtime: 3m23s (Full Length Source Vid (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NJ3bAspr_M&t=146s&ab_channel=groutaone))

- Hernando County Waterways (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zwbb8FvXpBE) - Runtime: 2m34s (Navigational Marker Locations (https://web.archive.org/web/20210127160537/https://www.hernandocounty.us/departments/departments-n-z/public-works/aquatic-services/waterways))
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 05, 2021, 12:37:40 PM
you acknowledge the existence of this ability to see further than should be possible on an RE
You can certainly see further than you could if we didn’t have an atmosphere. But we do have an atmosphere.
That can vary results to a degree, but ships still always sink below the horizon, there is no observation you can point me to where a ship goes out to sea and goes further and further and can always be fully restored by optical zoom without sinking below the horizon.

If you are at a viewing height of 20 inches and looking 23 miles across a bay then you won’t be able to see the distant beach “all the way down to the water line”. This is your claim and you claim to be able to reproduce this observation consistently. What a shame that you’ve never thought to document it when it would be such powerful evidence of a flat earth. I can’t imagine why...
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: Tumeni on April 05, 2021, 01:47:04 PM
Multi-point experiments like Experiment 2 have been conducted and reproduced. If you want further experiments at this point I would suggests that you start a YouTube channel and perform your own experiments.

Done. But the last time I linked to them in the uppers, I was warned for 'self-promotion' or such, and had my post punted down to AR. I can also cite a number of other YouTubers who have done similar. Do you want to discuss them?

Do you agree with the specific point I asked you about?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 06, 2021, 12:34:11 AM
you acknowledge the existence of this ability to see further than should be possible on an RE
You can certainly see further than you could if we didn’t have an atmosphere. But we do have an atmosphere.
That can vary results to a degree, but ships still always sink below the horizon, there is no observation you can point me to where a ship goes out to sea and goes further and further and can always be fully restored by optical zoom without sinking below the horizon.

If you are at a viewing height of 20 inches and looking 23 miles across a bay then you won’t be able to see the distant beach “all the way down to the water line”. This is your claim and you claim to be able to reproduce this observation consistently. What a shame that you’ve never thought to document it when it would be such powerful evidence of a flat earth. I can’t imagine why...

Have you provided anything more for us than excuses there? No. I would suggest that you start proving your version of things and stop making excuses that "refraction did it" and "you need to do x for me." We already know that refraction does anything that you don't like, in your poor attempt at justifying contradicting evidence.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 06, 2021, 06:38:02 AM
Have you provided anything more for us than excuses there?
Yes.

One thing FE people love to do is use a curve calculator, compare that with observations, note they don’t match and erroneously conclude that the earth must be flat. It’s laughable really.

We have an atmosphere and that is a confounding factor. You do know that, you posted a time lapse which shows the varying effects. Even curve calculators which account for refraction can’t know the atmospheric conditions when observations were made.

But ships do always sink below the horizon, and distant beaches are not visible from a low viewer height. I don’t believe that any amount of refraction is going to let you, from a viewer height of 20 inches, see over an expanse of 23 miles to a distant beach all the way down to the shoreline. So the Bishop Experiment is potentially revolutionary, if true. Especially as you got the result consistently. Such a shame you forgot to take your camera or document the experiment in any way on any of the occasions. Your continued failure to provide any evidence for your result is noted.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: Tumeni on April 06, 2021, 06:56:55 AM
I would suggest that you start proving your version of things ...

I offered to do that, and you referred me to Rowbottom's drawings and a selection of other people's observations in their videos, cited in your Wiki.

I asked you specific questions, and you simply said "Here's what some other folk did. Have a look". 

Are you ready and willing to discuss specifics of my observations, and those of selected others that have not been cited in your Wiki?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: SteelyBob on April 06, 2021, 07:09:48 AM
I would suggest that you start proving your version of things and stop making lame excuses that "refraction did it" and "you need to do x for me." We already know that refraction does anything that you don't like, in your poor attempt at justifying contradicting evidence.

But refraction does do it, Tom.

Refraction is easily shown in a lab, and the atmosphere refracts in exactly the same way we would expect from experiments. It's hard to predict exactly, of course, especially over long ranges, as there are so many variables, but we can say generally when it will be at a maximum. That's partly why flat earth experiments carried out over frozen lakes, for example, are so laughable - they are being conducted over precisely the kind of conditions you would want if you were trying to maximise refraction.

Things disappear over the horizon as they get more distant in exactly the way we would expect them to with our round earth and the atmosphere behaving as it does. I have yet to see a single video with anything in it that can't be explained by a round earth and a refractive atmosphere. I have also yet to see a single video with a ship, or other distant object, partially obscured from the bottom up, brought back into full view via a zoom lens or other magnifying device. The video in the wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Limits_to_Optical_Resolution (https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Limits_to_Optical_Resolution)) shows a boat that is quite clearly not on the horizon - there is visible sea beyond it. And the 'home experiment' is a total joke - that's just an eyesight test. It has nothing to do with perspective at all.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 06, 2021, 08:57:26 AM
Tom knows that refraction is a factor. And he knows it's not consistent. He's literally written a Wiki page about it which contains the timelapse I have referred to:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Refraction

But the Wiki page also says that

Quote
Sometimes it occurs, and at other times it does not occur

Which is demonstrably false. There is no observation where a ship sails away further and further and never sinks below the horizon. Just doesn't happen.
Unless the Bishop experiment is true of course - the results claimed, and the consistent nature of them would be revolutionary.
What a shame Tom never thought to document the result...
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 06, 2021, 04:36:11 PM
appeal to 'refraction' for this, we can see that you have nothing except excuses and poor arguments.

Is it safe to assume we can discount 'atmolayer' as "nothing except excuses and poor arguments" whenever you conveniently use it as your convention?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: Tumeni on April 06, 2021, 04:50:13 PM
Like this;

If, as in experiment 2, Rowbottom had a middle (black) flag which was half the height of the (white) others around it along his line of sight ...

Did I forget to upload the picture? I think so...

(https://i.imgur.com/MA0XINO.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther
Post by: RichHoagland on April 08, 2021, 04:58:28 PM
That's a good article in the OP. If there are contradicting observations to the sinking ship effect it is the duty of that scientist to get to the bottom of it, not to ignore it and continue repeating the dogma.

Excellent point - this has always bothered me.

I think what comes across most in this article is the fact that scientists deliberately went out to write an article called "How to Debate a Flat Earther" and they ended up providing ZERO fodder for doing so. The author of the Space.com article came out looking foolish - even without the deconstruction provided by the critique.

Is this lethargy an example of science taking "facts" for granted?