The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Projects => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on May 23, 2018, 10:00:25 PM
-
In the suggestions forum there is discussion to turn the upper level forums into a debate club, and get away from the current "ask the experts" theme. There aren't many FE'ers to debate against and it just creates a forum full of dead threads. Some doubt that people would participate, however.
Personally, I feel that the people coming here have at least some interest in the topic, and that doing this will create more interesting, self sustaining discussions.
Imagine that this message was at the top of the present day forums:
Welcome to the Debate Club
The top level Flat Earth Discussion Forums are a Debate Club. As in any debate club, the goal is to exercise your ability in debate to poke holes in arguments and expose weaknesses, even if you do not believe in that position yourself. Keep in mind that this is a friendly debate. Post in the Flat Earth Debate Club and join the fun!
Would you ever consider making an argument in favor of Flat Earth if this were a Debate Club?
See the thread in Suggestions & Concerns (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9685.0) that started this off.
-
I've argued in favour of a flat earth in real life, and it's pretty good fun.
It's also fairly easy, since most people don't know the right questions to ask.
It only gets tricky when someone asks a good question.
So though I'm tempted to say "yes", given that I would expect good questions to be asked here, I'm gonna have to go with "no".
I'll have a debate with you though, Tom, from the opposite side, if you're up for it. :)
-
Go on then: I'll start.
The Earth is flat. You've been lied to. Research it and you'll see that I'm right.
-
Go on then: I'll start.
The Earth is flat. You've been lied to. Research it and you'll see that I'm right.
You claim that the earth is flat.
How then do you explain how to sun and moon both seem to rise from behind something and set behind something?
-
I would be happy to debate from the other side. I can pose questions where the theory is weak and we can think up a good explanation for it, which we can post in the wiki to build up and better our arguments. And isn't that a good thing?
If you are serious about this and promise not to troll, and to think up genuine responses, then sure, I would engage with you in that. Differences aside, I am interested in what kind of arguments or rational you would make for some of these topics.
Don't we all want to see some good arguments for this topic?
Start a new thread on that, Max, and we can start. I will post where things are the weakest. This thread was mainly to gauge participation interest.
-
I will post where things are the weakest.
Whenever your're ready ...
-
Will you be deleting this thread if you get enough yeses? Otherwise it kind of gives the game away?
I wouldn’t mind butting in now and then when a RE’er was either wrong or being a dick and playing a flatty, but I don’t think I could do it for long, unless I could continually state, “because Sam says so” or ask over and over for proof we aren’t in a RE matrix, when does it become trolling if you are asking us to basically troll?
If I set up an Alt’ that was Inti-like or pasted reams of gobbledegook a la Sandy, would you ask me to represent more the position of this site? If so I have a few questions.
-
The argument of "Samuel Birley Rowbotham studied the matter, look at his study, he says that perspective is the cause" is an appeal to an authority. Is that really any different than one million appeals to "wikipedia said so" we see posted on the forum anyway?
When Rowbotham's study is questioned and it is asserted that the sun would never set on a flat earth the debator can just simply say "But how did the Ancient Greeks know that perspective lines receded infinitely into the distance without touching when they came up with their perspective theory?"
That puts the onus back onto the person asking the question (that Ancient Greek question is something I have never seen a good answer to).
We just need to put a little effort into this and we will have some good and interesting conversations. Some people will troll (as they always will), but some people will actually engage and think of something to move the conversation forward.
The current "ask the experts" theme is a bad one. There aren't enough participating FE'ers. These debates can't be held up waiting on me to join in. Right?
-
"But how did the Ancient Greeks know that perspective lines receded infinitely into the distance when they came up with their perspective theory?"
That puts the onus back onto the person asking the question (that Ancient Greek question is something I have never seen a good answer to).
Euclid's geometry answers the question perfectly well under his definition of 'parallel line' and any reasonable definition of 'perspective line'.
-
"But how did the Ancient Greeks know that perspective lines receded infinitely into the distance when they came up with their perspective theory?"
That puts the onus back onto the person asking the question (that Ancient Greek question is something I have never seen a good answer to).
Euclid's geometry answers the question perfectly well under his definition of 'parallel line' and any reasonable definition of 'perspective line'.
Yeah, that's his theory, but how did he KNOW that the perspective lines were infinite and never touched? What experiment did he do?
Some pressing questions brings us into some interesting topics to discuss.
We don't need to be waiting for me to appear to continue these conversations. I feel that the people here are smart and clever enough to maintain these conversations on their own.
-
Yeah, that's his theory, but how did he KNOW that the perspective lines were infinite and never touched? What experiment did he do?
What experiment do you think is possible over infinite distances? The actual answer is you don't need to do an experiment, you just need to understand that a triangle where two of the points are a fixed distance apart remains a triangle (i.e the angle at the third point is > 0) no matter how far those two points is from the third. This is self evident, it doesn't need rigorous proof.
So yeah, it is easy, as you show repeatedly on here, to find some objection to pretty much anything but it all becomes a bit silly as in this example or my repeated example about how I don't believe kangaroos exist: refusing to believe anyone who says they've seen one, claiming any photo and video of them is CGI, being taken to see one and claiming it's animatronic and so on. You can always do this, as you're doing in the threads about horizon dip, but it becomes increasingly desperate and silly.
You can keep on denying the nature of reality but it doesn't make for an honest or interesting debate. Not for long anyway. Hence the same threads repeating over and over on here. It will be interesting to see if the changes you're discussing in S&C make much difference but I'm sceptical because the issue here is the subject matter, and there's not much you can do about that...
-
Yeah, that's his theory, but how did he KNOW that the perspective lines were infinite and never touched? What experiment did he do?
Since perspective lines are only finitely long projections, it is easy to prove this. We can't observe infinitely long parallel lines, but since we have defined them as parallel, we do know they will never meet.
Tom, I am always confused about whether you mean parallel line or perspective line. Much of this is about clear use of language.
-
Since you guys admit that the infinite perspective line concept probably has never been demonstrated, and that you could not do it, and that there are no experiments on infinite perspective lines, what just happened here?
The Rowbotham side seems to have gained ground in the debate. The fundamental assumptions of the Ancient Greek side was never truly demonstrated in the first place.
The Rowbotham side just needs to continue to point out that certain assumptions are being made and the tables have completely turned.
-
Would a simple way to remember the difference be that perspective lines exist in 2D drawings and images, while parallel lines exist also in reality?
Also to point out: rarely do people genuinely "appeal to Wikipedia". Rather, Wikipedia is a starting point. It has references to more in depth studies. The information in there has been peer reviewed and verified.
It's a big difference to "appealing to Sam" - he's just one man, with some far out, unverified ideas, and very often shown to be wrong.
Likewise, no one's really "appealing to the ancient Greeks", but rather referencing them as the discoverers/inventors of something we have tested over and over again, and can test again today, if we like.
Does that make sense?
-
The fundamental assumptions of the Ancient Greek side was never really demonstrated in the first place.
*sigh*.
But that's the following conversation taking place:
A: A triangle's angles always add up to 180 degrees.
B: How do you know that is always the case? Have you tested every single triangle individually?
A: Well no, but...
B: I WIN!
If an isosceles triangle has three points, A,B and C, A and B are the base and C is the top. If A and B are a fixed distance apart and move downwards away from C at what distance is the angle ACB 0?
You are effectively claiming the answer is finite but it can't be. I don't need to do an experiment over infinite distances to prove that, it's bleedin' obvious and the lack of an experiment over infinite distances isn't a "win" for you. Yes, you can continue the debate but it's not an interesting or honest debate.
-
Since you guys admit that the infinite perspective line concept probably has never been demonstrated, and that you could not do it, and that there are no experiments on infinite perspective lines, what just happened here?
Hold on, I just 'it is easy to prove this' and you said it 'probably has never been demonstrated', what did just happen here? Are you actually reading anything that anyone says?
-
Since you guys admit that the infinite perspective line concept probably has never been demonstrated, and that you could not do it, and that there are no experiments on infinite perspective lines, what just happened here?
The Rowbotham side is winning the debate! The fundamental assumptions of the Ancient Greek side was never truly demonstrated in the first place.
Bertrand Russel called. Said something about a teapot. Between Earth and Mars I think?
Euclidean perspective is demonstrable for all testable distances. Claims that they don't hold up over infinite distances would be unfalsifiable. You have the burden of proof.
-
Euclidean perspective is demonstrable for all testable distances. Claims that they don't hold up over infinite distances would be unfalsifiable. You have the burden of proof.
I think you are confusing the issue here by even suggesting that a geometrical proof is 'testable'. Geometric and mathematical proof is a priori, i.e. from first self-evident principles, and requires no empirical investigation.
'There is no greatest prime number'
'What have you tested every prime number to ensure it isn't the greatest?'
'Well obviously not'
'I win!!!'
-
The response in all of the above is "but math says..."
But if no one has experimented on that concept of the infinite perspective lines how do we know that perspective plays by those rules? Numerous assumptions are being made about perspective.
Since it is widely admitted that experiments have not been made on that matter, we are really just discussing a hypothesis.
-
But if we can't experiment on that concept of the infinite perspective lines how do we know that the universe plays by those rules? Numerous assumptions are being made about perspective.
Since it is widely admitted that we can't really experiment on such things, we are really just discussing a hypothesis.
A hypothesis that you will need to prove wrong yourself, not demand proof for. It's already been proven experimentally over many different distances.
-
The response in all of the above is "but math says..."
But if we can't experiment on that concept of the infinite perspective lines how do we know that perspective plays by those rules? Numerous assumptions are being made about perspective.
Since it is widely admitted that we can't really experiment on such that matter, we are really just discussing a hypothesis.
No you misunderstand the nature of proof. A proof is valid in all cases, that is the whole point of it. Nor are we 'discussing a hypothesis'. A hypothesis is something put forward which needs to be tested by empirical investigation. A proof by contrast requires no hypothesis.
A hypothesis that you will need to prove wrong yourself, not demand proof for. It's already been proven experimentally over many different distances.
Again, the proof that perspective lines meet at a finite distance is a proof, not a hypothesis. You are giving too much away.
Nor is geometry 'proved experimentally'.
-
But if we can't experiment on that concept of the infinite perspective lines how do we know that the universe plays by those rules? Numerous assumptions are being made about perspective.
Since it is widely admitted that we can't really experiment on such things, we are really just discussing a hypothesis.
A hypothesis that you will need to prove wrong yourself, not demand proof for. It's already been proven experimentally over many different distances.
Tested over different distances, perhaps (based on what study and what exact results?), but the lines may eventually merge. Who showed that they continue infinitely and ad infinitum?
The response in all of the above is "but math says..."
But if we can't experiment on that concept of the infinite perspective lines how do we know that perspective plays by those rules? Numerous assumptions are being made about perspective.
Since it is widely admitted that we can't really experiment on such that matter, we are really just discussing a hypothesis.
No you misunderstand the nature of proof. A proof is valid in all cases, that is the whole point of it. Nor are we 'discussing a hypothesis'. A hypothesis is something put forward which needs to be tested by empirical investigation. A proof by contrast requires no hypothesis.
This statement just admits that the argument is weak house of cards and that you may be rationalizing your result rather than making an empirical conclusion.
-
I don't think Euclid has ever defined parallelism in the view of perspective perception. It's completely unrelated. What we nowadays call 2d or 3d Euclidean spaces are two of many possible n dimensional geometrical spaces. They are defined by certain axioms. And because this are definitions, one has not to proof that one of the axioms is valid in a certain space. If e.g. the axiom of parallelism in Euclidean space would not be valid, the space would not be Euclidean, it would be a different space.
What you can try to proof is, if a certain real space is Euclidean or not. E.g. can our universe be described as an Euclidean space? Regarding to Einstein's general relativity theory we are living in a 4 dimensional non-Euclidean space where we describe points in this space by Gaussian coordinates. Nevertheless, regarding more down to the earth problems compared to general relativity, the space around us is Euclidean.
-
Tested over different distances, perhaps, but the lines may eventually merge. Who showed that they continue infinitely and ad infinitum?
Again, this confusion between parallel lines (which cannot meet, because defined as lines which never meet), and perspective lines (which are projections on a finite surface).
Tom, do we need an experiment to prove that no bachelor is married? Why? Is it a 'testable hypothesis' that no bachelor is married? Or that a bullock has no testicles?
The level of incomprehension here is staggering.
I don't think Euclid has ever defined parallelism in the view of perspective perception. It's completely unrelated. What we nowadays call 2d or 3d Euclidean spaces are two of many possible n dimensional geometrical spaces. They are defined by certain axioms.
Euclid has definitions, axioms and postulates. Book I definition 23.
Parallel straight lines are straight lines which, being in the same plane and being produced indefinitely in both directions, do not meet one another in either direction.
This is the same as defining a bachelor as an unmarried man. Tom will object 'have you tested all bachelors to make sure they are not married?'
-
This statement just admits that your argument is weak house of cards and you are rationalizing your result rather than making an empirical conclusion.
My argument is a proof. Do you understand what a proof is? Certainly not a 'weak house of cards'.
-
But if we can't experiment on that concept of the infinite perspective lines how do we know that the universe plays by those rules? Numerous assumptions are being made about perspective.
Since it is widely admitted that we can't really experiment on such things, we are really just discussing a hypothesis.
A hypothesis that you will need to prove wrong yourself, not demand proof for. It's already been proven experimentally over many different distances.
Tested over different distances, perhaps (based on what study and what exact results?), but the lines may eventually merge. Who showed that they continue infinitely and ad infinitum?
Nobody showed that they go on forever. However, since it works for near distances, you need to show that they don't continue infinitely.
-
Nobody showed that they go on forever. However, since it works for near distances, you need to show that they don't continue infinitely.
Again, this is playing to Tom's strengths, such as they are.
Mathematics already proves this, even in the infinite case. Burden of proof not needed, proof already exists.
-
The conversation can go on many different ways form here.
- I can assert that it is not really me who claimed anything about infinite perspective lines being the cause, and so that is your burden to show.
- I can continue to ask for evidence of the admitted hypothesis
- I can point out the assumptions.
- I can argue by incredulity.
There are many ways for us to go on this, in my effort to show that a theory held as true for thousands of years can seem to wobble with the weakest of scrutiny.
It is not hard to argue on this side, and it encourages the production of evidence or supporting evidence. And isn't that more interesting than a forum full of dead threads and non responses?
Why hold up these interesting conversations based on the participation of a few people?
-
I can assert that it is not really me who claimed anything about infinite perspective lines, and so that is your burden to show.
So you still don't understand the definition of 'perspective line'. What's the point in any discussion whatsoever if people (and that is not just Tom) fail to understand the meanings of the various terms used?
Count me out, although I voted yes. I will attempt not to return to this site. Completely crazy.
-
I can assert that it is not really me who claimed anything about infinite perspective lines, and so that is your burden to show.
So you still don't understand the definition of 'perspective line'. What's the point in any discussion whatsoever if people (and that is not just Tom) fail to understand the meanings of the various terms used?
Count me out, although I voted yes. I will attempt not to return to this site. Completely crazy.
This is a friendly debate. Even if your position is right, your posts also educates people in the audience to know the truth. We uncovered some interesting topics here. Maybe about some things people did not know before. And isn't spreading the truth what you came here to do?
-
Perspective has in the first place nothing to do with geometry, its an optical effect due to imaging of 3D space onto a 2D plane via a diffracting medium. In this sense the merging of parallel lines at large distances has no physical reality. If I build a railway track and at every point I take care that at every point the tracks have the same distance, then this does not change suddenly if I look along the tracks and I have the impression they are merging.
And this has also nothing to do with Euclid. As I said before, the Euclidean space is self-consistently defined, if it holds the axioms it is Euclidean, if not, its non-euclidean.
-
a theory held as true for thousands of years seems to wobble with the weakest of scrutiny.
you're not attacking anything held true for thousands of years. you're attacking your misunderstanding of mathematics. the thing you are attacking is not a thing anyone in physics or mathematics purports.
parallel lines are just a definition people invented. for example, i can define parallel lines as two lines that maintain a constant distance from one another. done. i never had to use the word infinity.
more importantly, nothing about your perceptions requires anything to go to infinity. there is a "smallest angle" your eye can resolve. when stuff gets further away from you, then it subtends a smaller angle. when it angle it subtends gets smaller than the "smallest angle" you can resolve, then you can't resolve it anymore. again, no infinity required. it's just angles and apertures and "how many rods and cones do you have." or however eyeballs work.
-
- I can continue to ask for evidence of the admitted hypothesis
Go ask an art teacher how far away the vanishing point is. There is also a model to show it on this very forum.
- I can point out the assumptions.
Again, you can't just assume that a working model for any distance you test will break down at a distance. Russel's teapot and Occam's razor both say no.
- I can argue by incredulity.
So could an art teacher. News flash: not everything makes sense.
-
God only knows what Tom is even arguing here - Tom certainly doesn't.
The above really demonstrates, for me, why "arguing on the other side" probably won't work.
The only way to defend flat earth, at a certain stage, is to be intellectually dishonest.
I like to think we on the side of facts also have a sense of honesty and fair play about us.
Definitely, for me to even pretend to defend the flat earth with Tom's usual tactics would feel icky.
And also kind of boring too: how satisfying can it be to be backed into a corner over and over again and respond ad infinitum, "well have you tested every little aspect of that yourself?" or "yes, but Rowbotham says [derp derp]" or "perspective and optics and fairies and waves"?
Or, if none of that works, to just leave the room and come back later when a whole new group has arrived and start the whole thing over again?
-
If Rowbotham is wrong, then lets show and prove with some certainty that he is wrong.
One can argue that "math says and therefore" isn't really a good enough argument that certain rules are necessarily applied to something we can't really test the limits of.
I am not above saying that I was wrong. These debates explore the issue, and it is hard to deny that.
-
I guess I’m with Gary, Max, Ed' and the others, I don’t say that that last argument wasn’t won by you because I need the RE to be true, it’s just that your assertion that “a theory held as true for thousands of years seems to wobble with the weakest of scrutiny”, using the Ancient Greek gambit, seems so weak, and I have tried to steer away from Incredulity arguments for the same reason.
I do like arguing and I admit I had to relearn a lot of stuff doing it here, but because I felt it was right to defend against this wave of anti-knowledge that floods the real stuff, I’m not sure I can do it with the same zeal if someone were to label me along with Dooby Doo or Sergeant.
-
One can come up with lots of follow up questions... e.g.:
If the earth is flat and mono-polar, its natural symmetry is cylindrical, so one should use cylindrical coordinates to define a place on the earth. One is the angle around the pole, the second is the distance to the pole and the third one the height above sea level. Why using spherical coordinates made for a sphere?
On a sphere, straight lines, defined as the shortest connection between two points, are part of great circles if the points are on the surface of the sphere. In this non-Euclidean spherical space this lines meat twice going around the sphere. How would you then define parallel or vanishing point, infinity and so on in such a 2D spherical space (the surface of sphere) opposed to a 2D Euclidean space?
-
If Rowbotham is wrong, then lets show and prove with some certainty that he is wrong.
We have. For those who have the eyes to see it.
I am not above saying I was wrong.
Can you remember three occasions when you've admitted to being wrong?
-
God only knows what Tom is even arguing here - Tom certainly doesn't.
The above really demonstrates, for me, why "arguing on the other side" probably won't work.
The only way to defend flat earth, at a certain stage, is to be intellectually dishonest.
I like to think we on the side of facts also have a sense of honesty and fair play about us.
Definitely, for me to even pretend to defend the flat earth with Tom's usual tactics would feel icky.
And also kind of boring too: how satisfying can it be to be backed into a corner over and over again and respond ad infinitum, "well have you tested every little aspect of that yourself?" or "yes, but Rowbotham says [derp derp]" or "perspective and optics and fairies and waves"?
Or, if none of that works, to just leave the room and come back later when a whole new group has arrived and start the whole thing over again?
Of course you can, in principle, honestly discuss a flat-earth as kind of gedankenexperiment. So you can take the laws of physics and then assume a flat world. Then think of the consequences and design a model. You can even invent new laws of physics and use them in your model. That's all fine and honest.
The only problem is, that this would end up, if you keep your model self-consistent, in a very different world compared to the one we live in. This is the obvious problem of any flat-earth model. You can find alternative explanations for certain aspects, but you can never find a consistent model. Because you cannot, as any cartographer knows, without distortions transform a 3D space into a 2D one.
-
I see some discussion on what would be necessary to successfully attempt a debate - no arguments by incredulity, and an effort in hypothesizing physical laws or limits to optics.
Hexagon has the right idea. If you don't like my argument, why not open the door?
Why does does the theme of the forum need to be to be "debate the experts" then? Why hang up the debates on me or Thork to appear?
Why not hear more voices other than my own? Isn't that more interesting?
-
Why hang up the debates on me or maybe Thork to appear? Why not hear more voices other than my own? Isn't that more interesting?
It would be, yes. As a relative newcomer to this site I very much have the impression that it's something of a "one man show" - and I would think more voices would be satisfying.
Of course you can, in principle, honestly discuss a flat-earth as kind of gedankenexperiment. So you can take the laws of physics and then assume a flat world. Then think of the consequences and design a model. You can even invent new laws of physics and use them in your model. That's all fine and honest.
Have you seen the Vsauce video on flat earth (http://"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNqNnUJVcVs")? The point about the impossibility of gravity on a flat world is interesting.
Is this why flat earth believers are forced to deny gravity? Or was it some other reason?
-
Why hang up the debates on me or maybe Thork to appear? Why not hear more voices other than my own? Isn't that more interesting?
It would be, yes. As a relative newcomer to this site I very much have the impression that it's something of a "one man show" - and I would think more voices would be satisfying.
Of course you can, in principle, honestly discuss a flat-earth as kind of gedankenexperiment. So you can take the laws of physics and then assume a flat world. Then think of the consequences and design a model. You can even invent new laws of physics and use them in your model. That's all fine and honest.
Have you seen the V-Sauce video on flat earth (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNqNnUJVcVs)? The point about the impossibility of gravity on a flat world is interesting.
Is this why flat earth believers are forced to deny gravity? Or was it some other reason?
Just a reminder not all FE believers deny gravity. Although it's not as popular on this site, infinite plane Earth has no need to deny it, as the most obvious issues with gravity for a finite disc Earth, are fixed under the infinite plane model. Gravity variances are then explained in much the same way as for a finite disc.
As I've pointed out before though Tom, your objection to 'Ancient Greek Math' essentially boils down to claiming geometry that works at any realistically testable difference, stops working at some unknown distance for no known reason, and without any proper evidence (as all of it relies upon the starting assumption of a flat Earth). You then claim it's on us to prove that it keeps working at those distances, rather than understanding it's on you to disprove the model.
-
If we argue for flat earth, are we allowed to say things like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/rDuoXJu.jpg)
;D ;D ;D
-
I have supporting arguments in that thread that the Latitude and Longitude coordinate system is based on spherical coordinates, and not necessarily a direct test of the distance traveled. Way to quote mine.
-
The above really demonstrates, for me, why "arguing on the other side" probably won't work.
The only way to defend flat earth, at a certain stage, is to be intellectually dishonest.
This is the exact problem.
A debate needs an interesting subject matter, and we have that, but it also needs to have two equally credible positions one can take on it, and we don’t have that.
You can only defend FE...what I will charitably call “Theory” by denying all modern science and claiming everything which shows you to be wrong to be fake.
And as you say, you have to be actively dishonest like Tom is being in the threads about horizon dip, pretending he thinks the “real horizon” is actually in the middle of the sky or that tiny errors in alignment are significant.
It’s not an honest way to debate and that’s why a debate club won’t work because you can’t honestly debate from either side on this one.
-
I have supporting arguments in that thread that the Latitude and Longitude coordinate system is based on spherical coordinates, and not necessarily a direct test of the distance traveled. Way to quote mine.
Quote mining? I ought to say it takes one to know one: but also that's not really "quote mining" as we mean it, since I'm not taking your words out of context to attempt to give them a different meaning.
As it's presented is what you both said and meant.
Though you are perfectly within your rights to say you've changed your mind on that (just as any humble, smart, and honest person would do).
Also, the question was "would we be allowed to say things like that if we were pretending to be flat earthers?" I.e., dispute evidence presented by questioning the very fabric of what is accepted as reality.
If you take that to it's logical conclusion you can just as easily dismiss everything Rowbotham claimed, since he never once personally measured the Bedford Levels, nor paced it out from London to Brighton, nor strung a homemade tape measure across the sea between two points - and keep going that way till you start thinking you're a brain in a jar and it's all just a dream.
Do you see what I'm saying?
-
actively dishonest like Tom is being in the threads about horizon dip, pretending he thinks the “real horizon” is actually in the middle of the sky
Bobby has shown that the atmosphere in the distance (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9765.msg153111#msg153111) does matter in regards to where the horizon is located.
Why are you accusing others of dishonesty?
-
Why are you accusing others of dishonesty?
Probably because most of the respondents here feel very strongly that you're frequently "intellectually dishonest".
-
Er...could it be that it's because you're dishonest, Tom? ;D
Please refrain from this sort of pettiness in the upper. If you want to tell the world about your feelings towards Tom, do so in Angry Ranting.
-
I'll edit it to more accurately reflect the sentiment.
Though may I also point out that it was in reply to a question?
-
I'll edit it to more accurately reflect the sentiment.
Not really an improvement. Please just try to keep these sort of remarks to their appropriate board in the future.
Though may I also point out that it was in reply to a question?
There are good and bad ways to answer a question. For example, I could answer this with "Yes." - not very helpful, is it? Similarly, an appropriate answer to Tom's question would be providing some reasoning or evidence. Answering it with, effectively, "I'm calling you x because you are x" is devoid of any substance. "You're x because many people think you're x" is much the same.
-
Fair enough.
Or, even better, probably I should have just left it to the person it was addressed to. ;)
Anyway, back to the matter at hand...
-
Despite getting irritated yesterday, I now volunteer to represent FE from the southern FE perspective (!).
Broadly, southern FE supports all the main arguments for Northern FE, but we think the centre of the world is Antarctica, and that the ring of ice is at the outer rim of the world, just as with Northern FE, except we think it has a different location.
We also think there is a gigantic conspiracy to delude ordinary people into thinking there is a place called the 'North Pole', where lines of longitude meet. This is a lie. Clearly the lines radiate out from where we live in the middle of Antarctica, like wheels on from a spoke, and terminate at the Northern Rim.
I did start a thread about this, but a moderator deleted it as 'nonsense'.
Why is it nonsense to suppose that there is a ring of ice around the so-called 'Northern' regions? Why is it nonsense to suppose that the world is flat? It is clearly flat in the ice fields where I live.
-
Thing is, we've been to the north pole, explored it, and even flown across it and come out the other side.
Though to that you'd probably say, "you personally?" and I'd have to admit I hadn't.
Good point.
What about all the photos and videos from space that show the Earth is round? How do you explain them?
-
Thing is, we've been to the north pole, explored it, and even flown across it and come out the other side.
Though to that you'd probably say, "you personally?" and I'd have to admit I hadn't.
Good point.
What about all the photos and videos from space that show the Earth is round? How do you explain them?
These are clearly manufactured by NASA. Surely you can do better than that?
-
Max, there is a book written by Samuel Birley Rowbotham called Earth Not a Globe. You may learn a lot by reading it. Come back when you understand a little bit more.
-
There is a minority subgroup of FE'ers who argue that the south pole is the center. We were discussing it with them last year. They believe that much of upper Siberia and the upper Arctic Circle is poorly understood.
-
What about all the photos and videos from space that show the Earth is round? How do you explain them?
These are clearly manufactured by NASA. Surely you can do better than that?
I can do better.
Between the space agencies of Russia, China, India, Japan, USA, Europe, and the private efforts of independents from (at least) the USA and New Zealand, humankind has notched up over 70 years of manned and unmanned orbital space flight.
The presence of manned and unmanned orbital craft is verified on a daily basis by organisations and individuals, professional and amateur, from pretty much every civilised country on Earth, who;
- Monitor the orbital tracks of those satellites for geodesic purposes, sometimes purposes independent of the purpose of the satellite
- Download data from those satellites, for a variety of purposes; scientific, commercial and recreational
- Upload data to those satellites, usually for news-gathering, broadcasting, or commercial communication
- Navigate using data from those satellites
- Receive TV and radio services from them
- Observe the satellites by eye or by telescope, sometimes simply for the pleasure of doing so
- Maintain the orbital tracks of those satellites, and operate them, as a commercial enterprise providing services to others
If these satellites were not actually in orbit around a globe Earth, someone in one or more of the above groups would have noticed by now.
-
Get out of that one, Edby! :)
-
Get out of that one, Edby! :)
We have been here a hundred, if not a thousand times before. Go and do some reading in the subject.
-
So you're saying all those tens of thousands of people are lying?
Why would they even do that?
And don't say "money": it would probably cost more to run a secret program than it would to run a real one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKv7gwmEfKg
It's hard for one person to keep a secret; it's unimaginable that tens of thousands would be able to do it.
-
Get out of that one, Edby! :)
We have been here a hundred, if not a thousand times before. Go and do some reading in the subject.
Lots to read about satellite communications, anything you disagree with?
-
We have been here a hundred, if not a thousand times before. Go and do some reading in the subject.
Read what?
-
There is no proof that anyone has observed a satellite. People may have thought they saw one. A high altitude bomber with its lights not blinking may look like a satellite in space from the ground. Are you denying that bombers exist? That would be funny.
It's hard for one person to keep a secret; it's unimaginable that tens of thousands would be able to do it.
OK divide 10,000 by the number of people in the world. It's an infinitesimal amount against the overall human population.
Read what?
N00bs can go to the FAQ which we have carefully developed over many years on this site. Don't expect us to do your research for you.
-
You didn't answer my question about whether you think tens of thousands of people are a) lying; and b) keeping the whole thing a secret. Or why they would do that.
You do know you can take a photo of the ISS, right? And verify that it's way up there?
What is it if it's not a manned space station?
Try this: measure the angle you see it at, and at the exact same time get a friend 50 or 100 miles away to do the same. Then use a little high school trig to work out the altitude it's at. And explain how it's track on a flat plane. If you can.
Finally, how do you explain this footage, taken on SkyLab in 1973?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YzeGRFDIms
-
You didn't answer my question about whether you think tens of thousands of people are a) lying; and b) keeping the whole thing a secret. Or why they would do that.
It's quite a few people but money keeps everything on the hush hush.
-
Try this: measure the angle you see it at, and at the exact same time get a friend 50 or 100 miles away to do the same. Then use a little high school trig to work out the altitude it's at. And explain how it's track on a flat plane. If you can.
See what? Have you done this 'experiment'.
Finally, how do you explain this footage, taken on SkyLab in 1973?
How do you explain Kubrick's 2001 film, made about five years earlier?
In any case I have better things to do with my life than have a long discussion with every single person here. You are lucky to get a one sentence dismissal from me.
-
1. You really think a secret like that could be kept, by every nation on earth, encompassing tens of thousands of people, and not one single whistleblower ever?
Did you even watch the video I posted?
2. Yes, I have done the experiment. It works. You can see it for yourself.
Did you not see the cool vid someone took of the ISS transiting the sun during last year's eclipse?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lepQoU4oek4
How do you explain that?
3. There aren't men doing tricks and turns in zero-g in 2001. There's a person walking upside down, clunkily, and even that was advanced for the time.
You have no explanation for that clip, do you?
-
1. You really think a secret like that could be kept, by every nation on earth, encompassing tens of thousands of people, and not one single whistleblower ever?
The Rosenbergs.
Did you not see the cool vid someone took of the ISS transiting the sun during last year's eclipse?
Looked like a kite to me. What proof do you have that it was a space station?
That video has lots about Antarctica, where I live, duh. No one has ever photographed the Ice Wall because they are looking in the wrong place. It's way way away from the centre of the world.
-
‘Too expansive to be inside an airplane’.
Lol, Alien was filmed in a relatively small studio at Shepperton Studios, while the model and miniature filming was done at Bray Studios in Berkshire. Obviously the corners are being turned in a relatively small space.
You are not doing very well are you.
-
How is a kite orbiting the earth at 250 miles altitude???
And the point about it being too expansive to be in an airplane is because some people might say it was filmed in a zero-g airplane, in freefall. Though they only go a maximum of 20-30 seconds, and the full clip is much longer than that.
Did you really not know that's why he said that?
-
I don't know how Tom keeps this up. Don't you guys ever get out?
I don't know enough about film making to answer that. Why are you asking?
-
You made some good points about the bombers, the small studio for Aliens, Kubrick's advanced space effects for the time, and your mention of the Rosenburgs. It was more interesting than just seeing dead threads and no discussion.
There was some trolling, but I mainly saw Max spamming stuff and not keeping to a specific topic. Somewhat like when people spam out each of Eric Dubey's 200 proofs the earth is not a globe. That is not conductive to the conversation and anyone can see that on either side.
-
There is no proof that anyone has observed a satellite. People may have thought they saw one. A high altitude bomber with its lights not blinking may look like a satellite in space from the ground. Are you denying that bombers exist? That would be funny.
It's hard for one person to keep a secret; it's unimaginable that tens of thousands would be able to do it.
OK divide 10,000 by the number of people in the world. It's an infinitesimal amount against the overall human population.
Read what?
N00bs can go to the FAQ which we have carefully developed over many years on this site. Don't expect us to do your research for you.
How does satellite broadcasting and GPS work? Used by millions and established technology.
-
There is no proof that anyone has observed a satellite. People may have thought they saw one. A high altitude bomber with its lights not blinking may look like a satellite in space from the ground. Are you denying that bombers exist? That would be funny.
It's hard for one person to keep a secret; it's unimaginable that tens of thousands would be able to do it.
OK divide 10,000 by the number of people in the world. It's an infinitesimal amount against the overall human population.
Read what?
N00bs can go to the FAQ which we have carefully developed over many years on this site. Don't expect us to do your research for you.
How does satellite broadcasting and GPS work? Used by millions and established technology.
High altitude balloons.
-
There is no proof that anyone has observed a satellite.
How does satellite broadcasting and GPS work? Used by millions and established technology.
High altitude balloons.
There is no proof that all satellites are 'balloons'
-
Looked like a kite to me. What proof do you have that it was a space station?
The fact that it turned up in the right place, at the right time, exactly in accordance with its documented and predicted orbit. You don't think the photographer just happened to snap it at the right micro-second by chance, do you?
Balloons don't do that.
High-altitude bombers can't do that.
Add to that that the ISS is always seen going in the same direction; broadly west to east.
Balloons can't do that. They go where the wind takes them
Bombers can't do that. They have to change direction to return to base.
The ISS is never seen going against its documented, published and predicted flight path.
-
There is no proof that anyone has observed a satellite. People may have thought they saw one. A high altitude bomber with its lights not blinking may look like a satellite in space from the ground. Are you denying that bombers exist? That would be funny.
It's hard for one person to keep a secret; it's unimaginable that tens of thousands would be able to do it.
OK divide 10,000 by the number of people in the world. It's an infinitesimal amount against the overall human population.
Read what?
N00bs can go to the FAQ which we have carefully developed over many years on this site. Don't expect us to do your research for you.
How does satellite broadcasting and GPS work? Used by millions and established technology.
High altitude balloons.
Link to design and operators please.
-
High altitude balloons.
Link to design and operators please.
Top secret, nothing on Google.
A leaked Top Secret document won't get very far on the internet. The US Government has the full force of the law, the compliance of media, of ISPs, of foreign nations, and near limitless finances to shut things down. What makes you think they couldn't keep something a secret if they really wanted to?
-
The US Government has the full force of the law, the compliance of media, of ISPs, of foreign nations, and near limitless finances to shut things down. What makes you think they couldn't keep something a secret if they really wanted to?
Watergate?
-
The US Government has the full force of the law, the compliance of media, of ISPs, of foreign nations, and near limitless finances to shut things down. What makes you think they couldn't keep something a secret if they really wanted to?
Watergate?
That was a deliberate leak by the inner circle to remove Nixon.
-
The US Government has the full force of the law, the compliance of media, of ISPs, of foreign nations, and near limitless finances to shut things down. What makes you think they couldn't keep something a secret if they really wanted to?
Watergate?
That was a deliberate leak by the inner circle to remove Nixon.
[/SARCASM]Of course it was.[SARCASM END]
https://bestlifeonline.com/hidden-government-secrets/ (https://bestlifeonline.com/hidden-government-secrets/)
-
High altitude balloons.
Link to design and operators please.
Top secret, nothing on Google.
A leaked Top Secret document won't get very far on the internet. The US Government has the full force of the law, the compliance of media, of ISPs, of foreign nations, and near limitless finances to shut things down. What makes you think they couldn't keep something a secret if they really wanted to?
How do GPS balloons work with a precise orbit?
-
If the North Pole is all around the edge, how do you explain direct northern hemisphere flights? They would take like 3 times longer and fly over completely different terrain on your map.
-
High altitude balloons.
Link to design and operators please.
Top secret, nothing on Google.
A leaked Top Secret document won't get very far on the internet. The US Government has the full force of the law, the compliance of media, of ISPs, of foreign nations, and near limitless finances to shut things down. What makes you think they couldn't keep something a secret if they really wanted to?
Then why don’t they take down all of the YouTube videos “proving” the earth is flat? It would be easy to do so iof they can keep all of the other shit secret, as you say.
-
I would consider it. I've tried it elsewhere and I think it's fun.
It's not that hard when debating some goofball who doesn't really know anything but feels very confident in mocking and throwing insults because he knows he is backed by mainstream science.
The problem arises however, when debating an astute REer. I feel I can hold my own for a while, but if they persist I have to resort to ever more flimsy arguments.
In short, when debating a persistent and knowledgeable REer I don't feel I can win.
-
If the North Pole is all around the edge, how do you explain direct northern hemisphere flights? They would take like 3 times longer and fly over completely different terrain on your map.
I tend to ignore questions like these.
-
Then you're not engaging in honest, in-depth debate.
How can you expect to be taken seriously when you have no model, no good genuine explanations, and no answers to the most basic of questions?
-
Then you're not engaging in honest, in-depth debate.
How can you expect to be taken seriously when you have no model, no good genuine explanations, and no answers to the most basic of questions?
Most of your answers are inquisitive, may you please send me more so I can answer them?
-
If the North Pole is all around the edge, how do you explain direct northern hemisphere flights? They would take like 3 times longer and fly over completely different terrain on your map.
It would be of a different location then they (the government) says it is.
-
Yes, that's one of the reasons I joined this website.